Yep. Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 16, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Garrett Barton <[email protected]> wrote: > I won't need an upgrade path. Just flush out zk and hdfs and all will be > well? > On Mar 16, 2013 2:18 PM, "Aaron McCurry" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The upgrade to Lucene 4 will cause the people running 0.1.4 or < issues >> because of the custom directories in the older versions that are not >> required in the newer version of Lucene. If there is a compelling reason to >> create a converter so that upgrade will not require a reindex/reload I can >> probably create one. >> >> Aaron >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Garrett Barton <[email protected] >>> wrote: >> >>> Sounds like a good list to me. Lucene 4 was the one I wad hoping for. :-) >>> On Mar 16, 2013 2:10 PM, "Aaron McCurry" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> -Lucene 4.2 Upgrade >>>> This is the big feature, but I spent a lot of time a few weeks ago >>>> testing the resource management (InputIndex clones, Buffers, File GC, >>> etc) >>>> and geting it all working. So I feel really good about this code. >>>> >>>> -Automatic Slab configuration (Easy to integrate code) >>>> This is simple but makes things easier to configure >>>> >>>> -Super Query Parser (Easy to integrate code) >>>> This gives explicit control over the super queries >>>> >>>> There will probably be a couple of more things to add but most are >> going >>> to >>>> be drop in replacements of existing code. >>>> >>>> Anything else that you can think of that would be good backport? >>>> >>>> Aaron >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Garrett Barton < >>> [email protected] >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'd really like to see one as well. What features are you thinking of >>>>> backporting? >>>>> On Mar 16, 2013 2:01 PM, "Aaron McCurry" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Blur has been in the Apache incubator for 9 months and is long >>> overdue >>>>> for >>>>>> a official Apache release. The 0.2 branch is far away from being >>> able >>>> to >>>>>> be released. I was overly optimistic of how quickly of 0.2 could >> be >>>>>> feature complete. I know of a couple of projects that have >> recently >>>>>> upgrades from previous github versions of Blur to Apache Blur 0.1.4 >>>>>> (compiled locally). >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to create a 0.1.5 version bound for an Apache release >>> and >>>>> back >>>>>> port a couple of pieces of code from 0.2 in order to modernize the >>>>>> codebase. I would like to hear any thoughts on this idea, pros or >>>> cons? >>>>> I >>>>>> really would like to create a release of Apache Blur in the next >> few >>>>> weeks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Aaron >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
