On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Chris Hostetter
wrote:
>
> Whoa ... Typos are nothing new to the Solr documentation, but i think
> this is the first time I've been the one to notice a type in something
> someone else wrote...
>
> : + We can facet multile ways at the same time. The following e
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-64?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12770027#action_12770027
]
Lesiak Rémy commented on SOLR-64:
-
Hi all,
I use the the Solr version 1.4-dev.
I want to appl
Will do once I have a Lucene RC.
On Oct 25, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
If all goes well in lucene-land 2.9.1 should start a vote on Monday
sometime...
I've recently tested the latest stable Jetty (6.1.21) ... so we can
avoid some duplication, has anyone tested with the latest tomc
: These are realy URL fragments... none of the other examples show the
: indent=on or the rest of the URL either, and when we get down to
indent=on doesn't really affect the structure of the response docs
(especially since people following the tutorial are likely to be using a
browser that pret
While some of this could hypothetically be confusing, I don't think it
will be in reality.
Surprising, yes, but I don't think in a bad way.
I'm against cluttering the examples with all of the parameters... but
prepending "..." to show that some parameters have been omitted seems
OK.
I'll do it now
So, just to clarify, here's the plan as I understand it:
1. Put up a 1.4.0 RC today w/ 2.9.1-RC2
2. Commence vote on 1.4.0
3. Once 2.9.1 is finalized, replace in Solr and generate final artifacts
4. Release
Is that correct? This basically works on the assumption that the only
thing that has c
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> So, just to clarify, here's the plan as I understand it:
>
> 1. Put up a 1.4.0 RC today w/ 2.9.1-RC2
Yes, ASAP please :-)
> 2. Commence vote on 1.4.0
> 3. Once 2.9.1 is finalized, replace in Solr and generate final artifacts
If the lucen
On Oct 26, 2009, at 4:05 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Grant Ingersoll
wrote:
So, just to clarify, here's the plan as I understand it:
1. Put up a 1.4.0 RC today w/ 2.9.1-RC2
Yes, ASAP please :-)
2. Commence vote on 1.4.0
3. Once 2.9.1 is finalized, replace in
From http://wiki.apache.org/solr/HowToRelease:
Check out the branch with: svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/solr/branches/branch-X.Y
\
Note: at the moment releases need to be done on a unix box or in a
cygwin environment with unix linefeeds, because fixcrlf is only done
on the
On Oct 26, 2009, at 4:00 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
So, just to clarify, here's the plan as I understand it:
1. Put up a 1.4.0 RC today w/ 2.9.1-RC2
2. Commence vote on 1.4.0
3. Once 2.9.1 is finalized, replace in Solr and generate final
artifacts
We also must make sure the maven pom.xml p
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Does the second step (step 7 on the wiki) occur on the branch that we just
> checked out? I know in the end that I'm building w/ specversion and version
> set to 1.4.0 for the release, but that update of common-build.xml seems a
> bit out
Hmm, OK. I will need to update the branch build again, then. I
wasn't thinking about it for my specific release and not about going
forward.
On Oct 26, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Grant Ingersoll
wrote:
Does the second step (step 7 on the wiki
Tis the season for releases...
Please vote on releasing the Solr 1.4.0 artifacts located at http://people.apache.org/~gsingers/solr/1.4.0/
(note, solr.tar and solr-maven.tar are not artifacts to be released)
CHANGES are spelled out at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/solr/branches/br
Yup - good point. Solr 1.4 vote just started though - doubt anyone is
willing to start over for that - if something comes up, it should prob
just be removed though.
Uwe Schindler wrote:
> By the way, as Solr updated to the latest 2.9.1 artifacts: the
> SolrQueryWrapper fix for highlighter is now o
Hmmm, weren't you going to update the version numbers to 1.4.1-dev
like we just discussed in the other thread?
That way if someone changes some of the solr source from the download
and recompiles, they don't get a version number of 1.4.0
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Mon, Oct 26, 20
Also, not sure what the policy is on voting on files where the pom
still needs to change..
http://people.apache.org/~gsingers/solr/1.4.0/maven/org/apache/solr/solr-core/1.4.0/solr-core-1.4.0.pom
points to:
org.apache.lucene
lucene-analyzers
2.9.0
But we really want to point to 2.9.1
I
I can do it again. The generation process is pretty easy now.
On Oct 26, 2009, at 6:42 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
Also, not sure what the policy is on voting on files where the pom
still needs to change..
http://people.apache.org/~gsingers/solr/1.4.0/maven/org/apache/solr/solr-core/1.4.0/sol
Yes.
I need to update the POMs too, so scratch this vote for a little bit.
On Oct 26, 2009, at 6:35 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
Hmmm, weren't you going to update the version numbers to 1.4.1-dev
like we just discussed in the other thread?
That way if someone changes some of the solr source from th
If you want to update this, go for it. I am starting over. Let me
know.
On Oct 26, 2009, at 6:24 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
Yup - good point. Solr 1.4 vote just started though - doubt anyone is
willing to start over for that - if something comes up, it should prob
just be removed though.
Uwe S
"version" needs to be 2.9.1-dev.
No idea what "maven_version" should be set to.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:03 PM, wrote:
> Author: gsingers
> Date: Mon Oct 26 23:03:37 2009
> New Revision: 830013
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=830013&view=rev
>
Not following... This gets a little tricky w/ the Maven stuff b/c we
want it to point to the value that is actually released, which will be
2.9.1 in the pom. So, it won't work until Lucene is actually
published, unfortunately.
I don't know any other way around this except waiting until 2.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Not following...
I just updated the default version to 1.4.1-dev on the branch.
I really don't know what maven_version should be set to... I guess we
can leave it at 1.4.0 for now.
> This gets a little tricky w/ the Maven stuff b/c we wan
On Oct 26, 2009, at 8:40 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Grant Ingersoll
wrote:
Not following...
I just updated the default version to 1.4.1-dev on the branch.
I really don't know what maven_version should be set to... I guess we
can leave it at 1.4.0 for now.
Ye
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> On Oct 26, 2009, at 8:40 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Grant Ingersoll
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Not following...
>>
>> I just updated the default version to 1.4.1-dev on
OK, take two is up in the same place. Please vote.
On Oct 26, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Tis the season for releases...
Please vote on releasing the Solr 1.4.0 artifacts located at http://people.apache.org/~gsingers/solr/1.4.0/
(note, solr.tar and solr-maven.tar are not artif
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> OK, take two is up in the same place. Please vote.
I'm seeing emptiness at
http://people.apache.org/~gsingers/solr/1.4.0/
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
> On Oct 26, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>> Tis the season
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-236?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12770358#action_12770358
]
Lance Norskog commented on SOLR-236:
This looks like a really nice rework! This JIRA has
27 matches
Mail list logo
