So the problem here is where to draw the line. I think in a setup like we have with lucene and solr in one codebase the chance to hit a bug within these 72h is huge. This means the Release process is a huge pain each time. Then we have bugs that justify a respin and some who don't. I looked at SOLR-5762 and it seems this one should cause a respin but the LUCENE-5461 doesn't. It's hard to draw that line since its pretty much up to the RM and then you get heat if you draw that line. IMO we should improve our release process and release a point release every week shortening the vote period for that to maybe 24h. That way we can get stuff out quickly and don't spend weeks on the release process.
I will call this vote here as failed and build a new RC once SOLR-5762 is in. simon On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Steve Rowe <[email protected]> wrote: > I volunteer to be 4.7.1 RM. > > I’d prefer to delay the 4.7.0 release to include all known bugfixes, though. > > Simon, if you’re okay with it, I could take over as 4.7.0 RM and handle any > respins. If not, it’s your prerogative to continue with the current RC vote; > others can express their opinions by voting. I’m sure it’ll be fine either > way. > > Steve > > On Feb 21, 2014, at 8:19 AM, Simon Willnauer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Guys, I don't think we will ever get to the point where there is not a >> bug. But we have to draw a line here. If we respin I have to step back >> as the RM since I just can't spend more than 7 days on this. I think >> there should be a 4.7.1 at some point where you can get your bugs >> fixed as everybody else but we have to draw a line here. I think I am >> going to draw it here with the 3 +1 I am having. >> >> simon >> >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Tomás Fernández Löbbe >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Question here. Shouldn't SOLR-5762 be fixed before 4.7? My understanding is >>> that if not, Solr 4.7 won't be able to work with SolrJ from 4.6.1 or >>> earlier? >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> And I think it should be under optimizations not changes in behavior. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Martijn v Groningen >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Only spotted a small docs typo in the Lucene CHANGES.txt, the second >>>>> issue under "Changes in Runtime Behavior" should be LUCENE-5399 instead of >>>>> LUCENE-4399. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
