lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <>
Subject Re: Lucene 2.9.3 ? ( blocking Solr 1.4.1 ? ? ? )
Date Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:44:37 GMT
+1 for end-of-day Thu freeze -- I'll finish mine by then.

But I think for trivial fixes for kinda bad bugs (LUCENE-2311 -- real
bad: mergedSegmentWarner is basically unusable; LUCENE-2356) we should
make an exception (allow them into 2.9.3)?  I've already got the patch
up for 2311; I'll do 2356 shortly.


On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Uwe Schindler <> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am quite fine with doing a 2.9.3 / 3.0.2 release as soon as possible, but
> I don't like to force any reopened issues into this release. I have no
> problem with doing this in parallel to the Solr 1.4.1 Release. I don't think
> that it is a good idea, to now reopen a lot of issues, just to get them into
> 2.9.3 / 3.0.2:
> My idea was, to release the current branches as the artifacts for this
> release. Both branches are stable and contain very qualitative branches.
> They contain very stable patches and a release should be very unproblematic.
> The testsuites pass easy and I have no problem to create artifacts out of
> it. Based on this I said, that I would do the release manager again. I have
> the scripts for the parallel releases upto date and it's easy for me to
> build the release artifacts quickly using JDK 1.5.0_22.
> But now starting to forcefully back port issues is not a good idea, so I
> would like to freeze the branches soon and reject patches to go in. I would
> like to also vote against too late patches to go into these branches. Mike
> did hard work to get lots of recent memory problems in the indexer that were
> fixed in 3x and trunk branch. But we should not add patches from the late
> developments and for sure no analyzer changes (it's impossible, because we
> cannot change analyzers because they would change index format. Robert told
> me that he does not want to back port any changes here). Next week is
> buzzwords. I would like to start the RC1 shortly after the buzzwords. Simon,
> Grant and Robert and me will hopefully have fruitful discussions about it,
> but I think we should come to an end very soon.
> So I suggest the following timeline:
> I may accept backports in the branches until Thursday evening, so I can
> start to review the branch on Friday. During Buzzwords, we should not commit
> anything and maybe everybody tests the branch and its changes in Solr and
> his own installations. If you like I could create pre-artifacts (like a
> Hudson build) on Friday) or maybe RC1. I will also merge changes.txt files
> accorss 2.9, 3.0, 3.x and trunk on Friday. After that I don't want to accept
> any more changes and declare "freeze" on 2.9 and 3.0 branch.
> Mark, Hoss: Would it be possible to start the release process of Solr
> together with Lucene's RCs. Would it be possible to *replace" the final
> Lucene artifacts and build the Solr Atifacts together using my builds. So we
> would not block each other and maybe we can release on the same day. This
> would be a good start for future combines Solucene releases :-)
> Any comments?
> Thanks for all the work.
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> eMail:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chris Hostetter []
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 8:13 PM
>> To: Lucene Dev
>> Subject: Lucene 2.9.3 ? ( blocking Solr 1.4.1 ? ? ? )
>> My suggestion that we do a Solr 1.4.1 bug fix seems to have gottne Uwe and
>> McCandless all excited about doing a Lucene 2.9.3 release...
>> ...but it's not clear to me how realisitc this is, or how close we are to
> seeing it
>> happen.  Beyond hte few issues mentiond in that SOLR issue, is there a
>> concrete list of issues that are RESOLVED that people want to backport for
> a
>> 2.9.3 release?
>> I also see quite a few UNRESOLVED issues listed for 2.9.3...
>> sionId=12314799&showOpenIssuesOnly=true
>> ...are those really blocking a 2.9.3 release, or should we de-classify
> those as
>> "Fix For 2.9.3" issues?
>> -Hoss
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message