Hi, As there is no blockers for the release of Lucene/Solr 8.2 and the branch is stable I am planning to build the first Release candidate tomorrow (Friday). Please let us know if there is any concern/ issue that needs to be dealt with before moving to the next step.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:32 PM Michael Sokolov <msoko...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, good catch, I'll set the current version back to 6. I haven't > seen any comments on the (trivial) PR, so I'll push tonight in order > to keep the release train rolling > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:28 PM David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Disable or rollback; I'm good either way. I think you should un-bump > the FST version since the feature becomes entirely experimental. > > > > ~ David Smiley > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:34 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < > ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> +1 to rollback and having a 8.3 as soon as we nail this down (even if > that is days or 1-2 weeks after 8.2). > >> > >> On Mon, 15 Jul, 2019, 9:22 PM Michael Sokolov, <msoko...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> I guess whether we roll back depends on timing. I think we are close > >>> to a release though, and these changes are complex and will require > >>> further testing, so rollback seems reasonable to me. I think from code > >>> management perspective it will be simplest to disable direct > >>> addressing for now, rather than actually reverting the various commits > >>> that are in place. I can post a patch doing that today. > >>> > >>> I like the ideas you have for compressing FSTs further. It was > >>> bothering me that we store the labels needlessly. I do think that > >>> before making more radical changes to Arc though, I would like to add > >>> some encapsulation so that we can be a bit freer without being > >>> concerned about the abstraction leaking (Several classes depend on the > >>> Arc internals today). EG I'd like to make its members private and add > >>> getters. I know this is a performance-sensitive area, and maybe we had > >>> a reason for not using them? Do we have some experience that suggests > >>> that would be a performance issue? My assumption is that JIT > >>> compilation would make that free, but I haven't tested. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:36 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > That would be great. I wonder that we could also make the encoding a > >>> > bit more efficient. For instance I noticed that arc metadata is > pretty > >>> > large in some cases (in the 10-20 bytes) which make gaps very costly. > >>> > Associating each label with a dense id and having an intermediate > >>> > lookup, ie. lookup label -> id and then id->arc offset instead of > >>> > doing label->arc directly could save a lot of space in some cases? > >>> > Also it seems that we are repeating the label in the arc metadata > when > >>> > array-with-gaps is used, even though it shouldn't be necessary since > >>> > the label is implicit from the address? > >>> > > >>> > Do you think we can have a mitigation for worst-case scenarii in 8.2 > >>> > or should we revert from branch_8_2 to keep the release process going > >>> > and work on this for 8.3? > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:12 PM Michael Sokolov <msoko...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > Thanks for the nice test, Adrien. Yes, the tradeoff of direct > >>> > > addressing is heavily data-dependent. I think we can improve the > >>> > > situation here by tracking, per-FST instance, the size increase > we're > >>> > > seeing while building (or perhaps do a preliminary pass before > >>> > > building) in order to decide whether to apply the encoding. > >>> > > > >>> > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 9:02 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I dug this a bit and suspect that the issue is mostly with one > field > >>> > > > that is not part of the data but auto-generated: the ID field. > It is a > >>> > > > slight variant of Flake IDs, so it's not random, it includes a > >>> > > > timestamp and a sequence number, and I suspect that its patterns > >>> > > > combined with the larger alphabet than ascii makes this size > increase > >>> > > > more likely than with the data set you tested against. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > For instance I ran the following code with direct array > addressing on > >>> > > > and off to simulate a worst-case scenario. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException { > >>> > > > Directory dir = FSDirectory.open(Paths.get("/tmp/a")); > >>> > > > IndexWriter w = new IndexWriter(dir, new > >>> > > > IndexWriterConfig().setOpenMode(OpenMode.CREATE)); > >>> > > > byte[] b = new byte[5]; > >>> > > > Random r = new Random(0); > >>> > > > for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i) { > >>> > > > r.nextBytes(b); > >>> > > > for (int j = 0; j < b.length; ++j) { > >>> > > > b[j] &= 0xfc; // make this byte a multiple of 4 > >>> > > > } > >>> > > > Document doc = new Document(); > >>> > > > StringField field = new StringField("f", new BytesRef(b), > Store.NO); > >>> > > > doc.add(field); > >>> > > > w.addDocument(doc); > >>> > > > } > >>> > > > w.forceMerge(1); > >>> > > > IndexReader reader = DirectoryReader.open(w); > >>> > > > w.close(); > >>> > > > if (reader.leaves().size() != 1) { > >>> > > > throw new Error(); > >>> > > > } > >>> > > > LeafReader leaf = reader.leaves().get(0).reader(); > >>> > > > System.out.println(((SegmentReader) leaf).ramBytesUsed()); > >>> > > > reader.close(); > >>> > > > dir.close(); > >>> > > > } > >>> > > > > >>> > > > When direct addressing is enabled (default), I get 586079. If I > >>> > > > disable direct addressing by applying the below patch, then I get > >>> > > > 156228 - about 3.75x less. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > diff --git > a/lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/fst/FST.java > >>> > > > b/lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/fst/FST.java > >>> > > > index f308f1a..ff99cc2 100644 > >>> > > > --- a/lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/fst/FST.java > >>> > > > +++ b/lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/fst/FST.java > >>> > > > @@ -647,7 +647,7 @@ public final class FST<T> implements > Accountable { > >>> > > > // array that may have holes in it so that we can address > the > >>> > > > arcs directly by label without > >>> > > > // binary search > >>> > > > int labelRange = nodeIn.arcs[nodeIn.numArcs - 1].label - > >>> > > > nodeIn.arcs[0].label + 1; > >>> > > > - boolean writeDirectly = labelRange > 0 && labelRange < > >>> > > > Builder.DIRECT_ARC_LOAD_FACTOR * nodeIn.numArcs; > >>> > > > + boolean writeDirectly = false; // labelRange > 0 && > labelRange > >>> > > > < Builder.DIRECT_ARC_LOAD_FACTOR * nodeIn.numArcs; > >>> > > > > >>> > > > //System.out.println("write int @pos=" + > (fixedArrayStart-4) + > >>> > > > " numArcs=" + nodeIn.numArcs); > >>> > > > // create the header > >>> > > > > >>> > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 2:33 PM Michael Sokolov < > msoko...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > OK, both LUCENE-8781 and LUCENE-8895 were introduced in 8.2.0. > I see > >>> > > > > most of the other data sets report an increase more in the > 10-15% > >>> > > > > range, which is expected. I'm curious what the makeup of that > http > >>> > > > > logs data set is -- I guess it's HTTP logs :) Is the data > public? > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 7:23 AM Ignacio Vera < > iver...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > The change to Lucene 8.2.0 snapshot was done on July 10th. > Previous to that the Lucene version was 8.1.0. > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:53 PM Michael Sokolov < > msoko...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> Hmm that's possible, although the jump is bigger than > anything I > >>> > > > > >> observed while testing. I assume these charts are building > off of > >>> > > > > >> apache/master, or something close to that? If so, then the > timing is > >>> > > > > >> off a bit. LUCENE-8781 was pushed quite a while before > that, and then > >>> > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8895 which > extended the > >>> > > > > >> encoding to be the default (not just for postings) was > pushed on July > >>> > > > > >> 2 or so, but the chart shows a jump on July 10? > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 4:03 AM Ignacio Vera < > iver...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > Hi, > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > We observed using a snapshot of Lucene 8.2 that there is > an increase of around 30% on the memory usage of IndexReaders for some of > the test datasets, for example: > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > > https://elasticsearch-benchmarks.elastic.co/#tracks/http-logs/nightly/default/30d > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > We suspect this is due to this change: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8781 > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 7:10 AM David Smiley < > david.w.smi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > >> >> > >>> > > > > >> >> Since there won't be any 8.1.2 yet some issues got fixed > for 8.1.2 and there is an 8.1.2 section in CHANGES.txt those issues might > not be very noticeable to users that only look at the published HTML > version (e.g. https://lucene.apache.org/solr/8_1_1/changes/Changes.html > ). Maybe 8.1.2 should be integrated into 8.2.0 in CHANGES.txt? Despite > this, I see at least one of those issues got into the curated release notes > / highlights any way -- thanks Ignacio. > >>> > > > > >> >> > >>> > > > > >> >> ~ David Smiley > >>> > > > > >> >> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > >>> > > > > >> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > >>> > > > > >> >> > >>> > > > > >> >> > >>> > > > > >> >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jan Høydahl < > jan....@cominvent.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> Please use HTTPS in the links to download pages. > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> Jan Høydahl > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> 12. jul. 2019 kl. 09:04 skrev Ignacio Vera < > iver...@gmail.com>: > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> Ishan: I had a look into the issues and I have no > objections as far as they get properly reviewed if possible. It will be > good to commit the shortly so they go through a few CI iterations in case > something gets broken. I am planning to build the first RC early next week > as there are no blockers for the release. > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> Steve: Than you so much, I need to work on getting the > right permissions. > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> Finally I wrote a draft for the release notes for > Lucene and Solr. It would be good if someone with more experience in Solr > can review/modify my attempt as it is difficult for me to know which are > the most important bits. Here are the links to the drafts (not they are in > wiki, let me know if you have problems accessing them): > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> Lucene: > >>> > > > > >> >>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/resumedraft.action?draftId=120732808&draftShareId=cb366dc4-c136-4505-9c37-60bde5db2550&src=shareui&src.shareui.timestamp=1562914476369 > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> Solr: > >>> > > > > >> >>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/resumedraft.action?draftId=120732972&draftShareId=5cace703-b80b-49c4-a07f-55b891683f90&src=shareui&src.shareui.timestamp=1562914529931 > >>> > > > > >> >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 6:36 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < > ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > >> >>>> > >>> > > > > >> >>>> Hi Ignacio, > >>> > > > > >> >>>> I wish to include two security bug fixes (not > vulnerabilities, but feature regressions due to Authorization plugin), > SOLR-13472 and SOLR-13619. I can commit both shortly, attempting to write a > unit test for it (which is proving harder to do than reproducing, fixing > and testing manually). Please let me know if you have any concerns. > >>> > > > > >> >>>> Regards, > >>> > > > > >> >>>> Ishan > >>> > > > > >> >>>> > >>> > > > > >> >>>> On Thu, 11 Jul, 2019, 9:12 PM Tomoko Uchida, < > tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> Hi Ignacio, > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> LUCENE-8907 was fixed. (I have reverted a series of > commits which > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> cause backwards incompatibility on Lucene 8.x.) > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> Thank you for waiting for that! > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> Tomoko > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> 2019年7月11日(木) 22:44 Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de>: > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Hi, > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > I enabled the policeman Jenkins Jobs for 8.2 branch. > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Uwe > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > ----- > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Uwe Schindler > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > https://www.thetaphi.de > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > From: Ignacio Vera <iver...@gmail.com> > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 1:05 PM > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Subject: Re: Lucene/Solr 8.2.0 > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Hi, > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > The branch has been created, As a reminder, this > branch is on feature freeze and only documentation or build patches should > be committed. I will be waiting for LUCENE-8907 to start building the first > release candidate. > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Let me know if there is any other blocker before we > can start the release process. > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > It seems I do not have the permissions to create > the Jenkins jobs for this branch, maybe Steve can help here? > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Thanks, > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Ignacio > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 4:51 AM David Smiley < > david.w.smi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > BTW for 8.2.0 I updated Solr's CHANGES.txt to split > out issues that seemed to be Improvements that were not really New Features. > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > ~ David Smiley > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:38 AM Ignacio Vera < > iver...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Thanks Tomoko for taking care of that. > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 4:03 PM Đạt Cao Mạnh < > caomanhdat...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Hi Ignacio, > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > 8.1.2 bugfix release will cancelled. You can go > ahead with 8.2 release. > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Thanks! > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 20:38, Tomoko Uchida < > tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Hi, > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > I opened a blocker issue a while ago for release > 8.2: > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8907 > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Sorry about that, I noticed the backwards > incompatibility we have to > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > deal with today. If there are no objections, I will > revert the all > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > related commits from the branch_8x and 8_2 in a few > days. > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Thanks, > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Tomoko > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > 2019年7月10日(水) 22:02 Ignacio Vera <iver...@gmail.com > >: > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > Hi, > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > All the issues listed above has been already > committed and I see no blockers for release 8.2. I will cut the branch > tomorrow around 10am CEST and I will wait for the decision on the bug > release 8.1.2 to schedule the build of the first release candidate. Please > let us know if this is troublesome for you. > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > Thanks, > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > Ignacio > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:59 AM Joel Bernstein < > joels...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >> > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >> I've got one issue that I'd like to get in ( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13589), which I should have > wrapped up in a day or two. +1 for around July 10th. > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >> > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:14 PM Nicholas Knize < > nkn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>> +1 for starting the 8.2 release process. I > think it would be good to get the LUCENE-8632 feature into 8.2 along with > the BKD improvements and changes in LUCENE-8888 and LUCENE-8896 > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>> Nicholas Knize, Ph.D., GISP > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>> Geospatial Software Guy | Elasticsearch > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>> Apache Lucene PMC Member and Committer > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>> nkn...@apache.org > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>> > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:34 AM Ignacio Vera < > iver...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>>> Hi all, > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>>> 8.1 has been released on May 16th and we have > new features, enhancements and fixes that are not released yet so I'd like > to start thinking in releasing Lucene/Solr 8.2.0. > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>>> I can create the 8.2 branch in two weeks time > (around July 10th) and build the first RC by the end of that week if that > works for everyone. Please let me know if there are bug fixes that needs to > be fixed in 8.2 and might not be ready by then. > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>>> Ignacio > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: > dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > -- > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Best regards, > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > Cao Mạnh Đạt > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > E-mail: caomanhdat...@gmail.com > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >>> > > > > >> >>>>> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >>> > > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >>> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > -- > >>> > > > Adrien > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Adrien > >>> > > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >>> > > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
