I have created the lucene_solr_5_4 branch. Please, no new features in
this branch.

Please update this thread with any changes you propose to make to this
branch. Only JIRA tickets which are a blocker and have fix version 5.4
will delay a release candidate build.

Please do review the below - and take any action to clear up these
tickets asap.

I expect to create the first RC this time next week.

Thanks!

Upayavira

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015, at 02:05 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> I shall shortly create the 5.4 release branch. From this moment, the
> feature freeze starts.
>
> Looking through JIRA, I see some 71 tickets assigned to fix version
> 5.4. I suspect we won't be able to fix all 71 in one week, so I expect
> that the majority will be pushed, after this release, to 5.5.
>
> Looking for blockers or critical tickets, I see five tickets:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8326 (Anusham, Noble)
> blocker  "Adding read restriction to BasicAuth + RuleBased
> authorization causes issue with replication"
>
> Anusham/Noble - any thoughts on how to resolve this before the
> release?
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8035 (Erik) critical  "Move
> solr/webapp to solr/server/solr-webapp"
>
> This one I know isn't a blocker in any sense.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7901 (Erik) critical  "Add
> tests for bin/post"
>
> Again, this one does not seem to be something worthy of holding back
> a release
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6723 (Uwe) critical
> "Date field problems using ExtractingRequestHandler and java 9 (b71)"
>
> Uwe, I presume as this relates to Java 9, it isn't a blocker?
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6722 (Shalin, others),
> blocker  "Java 8 as the minimum supported JVM version for branch_5x"
>
> Looking at the discussion, there was no consensus here, so I will not
> consider this a blocker either.
>
> - o -
>
> So SOLR-8326 and LUCENE-6723 seem to be the ones worthy of attention.
> Anyone have comments/observations here?
>
> I will create the branch shortly.
>
> Upayavira

Reply via email to