Thanks for the release Gail!
I did the Twitter announce; I'll leave the G+ task to someone familiar
with that.
(BTW we us twitter @Hibernate, not @hibernate-dev for announcements)
Did you have any issue with doing these?
Regarding the blog: it would be nice to mention which version was released ;
On 12/16/2015 10:41 PM, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there an actual need for 8.1 at this point (so does it provide
> features we really need in OGM?) or is this more a general/theoretical
> proposal?
>
> I like the idea in general, but we must carefully think through all
> the implications,
FYI...
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/312708/stackoverflow-teams-sign-up
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:07 PM Steve Ebersole wrote:
> I just sent the request.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:26 PM Sanne Grinovero
> wrote:
>
>> On 10 December 2015 at 17:48, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>> > On T
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 01:06:14PM +, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> FYI...
> http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/312708/stackoverflow-teams-sign-up
Interesting.
--Hardy
pgpejtNbnxaR7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
hibernate-dev mailing list
hi
A few more code changes are needed for the optimiser optimiser.
On 12/16/2015 11:04 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Well keeping in mind that IMO this should be a separate optimizer (I
> know I won't be the only one to be leery of ThreadLocals here), users
> should be able to specify this one explicit
Ok that was probably a foolish idea, especially like I'm realising
there wouldn't be a version range available like Guillaume Smet
suggests for people needing Lucene 5.3 but with additional fixes from
us.
Guillaume: still, this Lucene version could have equally been a
"micro"- if you except that B
I had no problem logging onto @hibernate. I saw Vlad's tweet there already,
so didn't explicitly send a tweet from there.
Thanks for mentioning about the version number. I edited the blog to
explicitly state the version number.
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Sanne Grinovero
wrote:
> Thanks f
Hi Sanne,
> On 17.12.2015, at 17:11, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>
> Ok that was probably a foolish idea, especially like I'm realising
> there wouldn't be a version range available like Guillaume Smet
> suggests for people needing Lucene 5.3 but with additional fixes from
> us.
>
> Guillaume: still
