lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: 3.0.3
Date Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:04:33 GMT
Still having hard time getting my environment setup. Can any of you guys
with commit karma commit a small change to one of the files in trunk (add a
row to .gitignore or something), this should resolve some issue I'm having.
Thanks :)

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>wrote:

> Due to the SVN change my local repos were invalidated, been re-cloning for
> the past 12 hours and still not completed.
>
> This will have to be delayed a couple more days, sorry about that.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>wrote:
>
>> Lol
>>
>> Prescott, I should have it all for you by Monday
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> pos - I have a mental image of playing chess with you all as the pieces
>>> now..
>>>
>>> > Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:49:42 -0700
>>> > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>>> > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
>>> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> >
>>> > I get why svn and website needed to move, but why did you move Itamar
>>> as
>>> > well?  IGNORE ME.  That was a terrible joke.  English is fun.
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Prescott Nasser <
>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Itamar, svn and website are moved. I have artifacts more or less
>>> ready to
>>> > > roll - where do you stand with the Spatial updates? Should we wait
a
>>> bit to
>>> > > get them or will you need considerable more time?
>>> > >
>>> > > > From: geobmx540@hotmail.com
>>> > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> > > > Subject: RE: 3.0.3
>>> > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:54:44 -0700
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I'm sure at a minimum we'd need a vote - probably should get
>>> community
>>> > > consensus as well. At the moment I'm trying to keep up with all the
>>> other
>>> > > changes moving from incubator to a tlp. I'll reach out to infra on
>>> the
>>> > > process though.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:43:56 +0300
>>> > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>>> > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
>>> > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > No JIRA tickets, a couple of locally fixed bugs, a fix for
this
>>> > > > > issue<
>>> > >
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4342?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13447823#comment-13447823
>>> > > >,
>>> > > > > and bringing Spatial4n up to speed with the latest official
>>> release of
>>> > > > > spatial4j. I'm mid-work on all of those. This is mostly updates
>>> but 2
>>> > > of
>>> > > > > the bugs may severely affect results and sorting.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Speaking of SVN - what would be the process for pushing towards
>>> a move
>>> > > to
>>> > > > > git? would we need a vote?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Prescott Nasser <
>>> > > geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > I was going to put artifacts up for a vote after moving
SVN
>>> this
>>> > > weekend,
>>> > > > > > but found out I needed INFRA to move it. I was waiting,
>>> because we
>>> > > have
>>> > > > > > some links in the help files that I didn't want to update
>>> without
>>> > > the new
>>> > > > > > svn set.
>>> > > > > > Do you have JIRA tickets for the bugs? How severe are
they? I
>>> guess
>>> > > we
>>> > > > > > could wait, anyone else have opinions?
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 02:33:59 +0300
>>> > > > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>>> > > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
>>> > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Since this have been delayed thus far, if we can
release
>>> 3.0.3 next
>>> > > > > > Monday
>>> > > > > > > that would be great - I'll be able to push a couple
of more
>>> last
>>> > > minute
>>> > > > > > bug
>>> > > > > > > fixes to the spatial module, and also merge trunk
with the
>>> working
>>> > > > > > branch.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Prescott Nasser
<
>>> > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
>>> > > > > > >wrote:
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > If you guys have time could you merge them
into 3.0.3.
>>> Unless
>>> > > someone
>>> > > > > > has
>>> > > > > > > > objections, I'm going to cut the artifacts
in the next day
>>> or
>>> > > so. We've
>>> > > > > > > > kind of pushed this off long enough for the
"last little
>>> fix",
>>> > > at this
>>> > > > > > > > point what's left can come in 3.6 imo
>>> > > > > > > > ~P
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:14:18 +0200
>>> > > > > > > > > From: sisve@devhost.se
>>> > > > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > I've been using the 3.0.3 packages for
some time without
>>> any
>>> > > > > > problems.
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > There were some commits to the trunk
for LUCENENET-504
>>> > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-504>
>>> and
>>> > > > > > LUCENENET-506
>>> > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-506>
>>> which
>>> > > could be
>>> > > > > > > > > applied to the 3.0.3-branch. They both
affect the
>>> > > > > > FastVectorHighlighter,
>>> > > > > > > > > adding support for more query-types.
I'm not sure if they
>>> > > should be
>>> > > > > > > > > applied to the 3.0.3-release since they
have had very
>>> little
>>> > > > > > testing, on
>>> > > > > > > > > the other hand, how much more testing
will the
>>> > > FastVectorHighlighter
>>> > > > > > get
>>> > > > > > > > > for the 3.6-release?
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > On 2012-09-03 19:10, Prescott Nasser
wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > > Alright, I'm back from vacation
- are we happy enough
>>> with
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > > 3.0.3
>>> > > > > > > > nuget packages? It looks like no other adjustments
were
>>> made to
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > > 3.0.3
>>> > > > > > > > branch. Should we cut the release artifacts?
~P
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message