lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Currens <currens.ch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 3.0.3
Date Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:49:42 GMT
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