RE: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1
Hi all, The missing maven artifacts for the fast-vector-highlighter contrib of Lucene Java in version 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 are now available at: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/lucene/ http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/lucene/ Uwe - Uwe Schindler uschind...@apache.org Apache Lucene Java Committer Bremen, Germany http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/ From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:41 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org; gene...@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1 I got 3 binding votes from Grant, Mike, and Ted (and one from Simon, who was a big help on Sunday evening when I created the artifacts), so I push the maven artifacts onto the rsync repo in few minutes. Thanks! - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:03 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1 Sorry, I initially didn't want to start a vote, as Grant only proposed to maybe start one. But nobody responded (esp. to the questions in this mail) I ask again, an I will start the vote for now. == == Please vote, that the missing artifacts for of fast-verctor-highlighter of Lucene Java 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 should be pushed to repoX.maven.org. You can find the artifacts here: http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/ This dir contains only the maven folder to be copied to maven-rsync dir on p.a.o. The top-level version in the maven metadata is 3.0.0, which conforms to the current state on maven (so during merging both folders during build, I set preference to metadata.xml of 3.0.0). All files are signed by my PGP key (even the 2.9.1 ones; that release was originally built by Mike McCandless). == == What I additionally found out until now (because Simon nagged me): If you compare the JAR files inside the binary ZIP file from the apache archive and the JAR files directly published on maven (for the other contribs), the MD5s/SHA1s are different even as they are created from the same source code (because the timestamps inside the JAR are different, for 2.9.1 another JDK compiler/platform was used). This interestingly does not apply to lucene-core.jar in 3.0. Because of that I see no problem with this maven release, even that they are not the orginal JAR files from the binary distrib. What is not nice, is that the svn revision number in the manifest is different, but else is exactly the same, see my comments below in earlier mails about changing the ant script for showing the SVN rev of the last changed file. So if nobody objects to release these rebuild jar files, all signed by my key, I would like to simply put them on the maven-rsync folder. Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_luc...@fucit.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: (NAG) Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9 : What to do now, any votes on adding the missing maven artifacts for : fast-vector-highlighter to 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 on the apache maven reposititory? It's not even clear to me that anything special needs to be done before publishing those jars to maven. 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 were already voted on and released -- including all of the source code in them. The safest bet least likely to anger the process gods is just to call a vote (new thread with VOTE in the subject) and cast a vote ... considering the sources has already been reviewed it should go pretty quick. : : I rebuilt the maven-dir for 2.9.1 and 3.0.0, merged them (3.0.0 is top- : level : version) and extracted only fast-vector-highlighter: : : http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/ : : I will copy this dir to the maven folder on people.a.o, when I got votes : (how many)? At least someone should check the signatures. : : By the way, we have a small error in our ant build.xml that inserts : svnversion into the manifest file. This version is not the version of the : last changed item (would be svnversion -c) but the current svn version, : even : that I checked out the corresponding tags. It's no problem at all, but not : very nice. : : Maybe we should change build.xml to call svnversion -c
Re: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1
nice - I closed the issue. thanks uwe On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: Hi all, The missing maven artifacts for the fast-vector-highlighter contrib of Lucene Java in version 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 are now available at: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/lucene/ http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/lucene/ Uwe - Uwe Schindler uschind...@apache.org Apache Lucene Java Committer Bremen, Germany http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/ From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:41 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org; gene...@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1 I got 3 binding votes from Grant, Mike, and Ted (and one from Simon, who was a big help on Sunday evening when I created the artifacts), so I push the maven artifacts onto the rsync repo in few minutes. Thanks! - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:03 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1 Sorry, I initially didn't want to start a vote, as Grant only proposed to maybe start one. But nobody responded (esp. to the questions in this mail) I ask again, an I will start the vote for now. == == Please vote, that the missing artifacts for of fast-verctor-highlighter of Lucene Java 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 should be pushed to repoX.maven.org. You can find the artifacts here: http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/ This dir contains only the maven folder to be copied to maven-rsync dir on p.a.o. The top-level version in the maven metadata is 3.0.0, which conforms to the current state on maven (so during merging both folders during build, I set preference to metadata.xml of 3.0.0). All files are signed by my PGP key (even the 2.9.1 ones; that release was originally built by Mike McCandless). == == What I additionally found out until now (because Simon nagged me): If you compare the JAR files inside the binary ZIP file from the apache archive and the JAR files directly published on maven (for the other contribs), the MD5s/SHA1s are different even as they are created from the same source code (because the timestamps inside the JAR are different, for 2.9.1 another JDK compiler/platform was used). This interestingly does not apply to lucene-core.jar in 3.0. Because of that I see no problem with this maven release, even that they are not the orginal JAR files from the binary distrib. What is not nice, is that the svn revision number in the manifest is different, but else is exactly the same, see my comments below in earlier mails about changing the ant script for showing the SVN rev of the last changed file. So if nobody objects to release these rebuild jar files, all signed by my key, I would like to simply put them on the maven-rsync folder. Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_luc...@fucit.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: (NAG) Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9 : What to do now, any votes on adding the missing maven artifacts for : fast-vector-highlighter to 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 on the apache maven reposititory? It's not even clear to me that anything special needs to be done before publishing those jars to maven. 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 were already voted on and released -- including all of the source code in them. The safest bet least likely to anger the process gods is just to call a vote (new thread with VOTE in the subject) and cast a vote ... considering the sources has already been reviewed it should go pretty quick. : : I rebuilt the maven-dir for 2.9.1 and 3.0.0, merged them (3.0.0 is top- : level : version) and extracted only fast-vector-highlighter: : : http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/ : : I will copy this dir to the maven folder on people.a.o, when I got votes : (how many)? At least someone should check the signatures. : : By the way, we have a small error in our ant build.xml that inserts : svnversion into the manifest file. This version is not the version of the : last changed item (would be svnversion -c) but the current svn version, : even : that I checked out the corresponding tags. It's
[VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1
Sorry, I initially didn't want to start a vote, as Grant only proposed to maybe start one. But nobody responded (esp. to the questions in this mail) I ask again, an I will start the vote for now. Please vote, that the missing artifacts for of fast-verctor-highlighter of Lucene Java 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 should be pushed to repoX.maven.org. You can find the artifacts here: http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/ This dir contains only the maven folder to be copied to maven-rsync dir on p.a.o. The top-level version in the maven metadata is 3.0.0, which conforms to the current state on maven (so during merging both folders during build, I set preference to metadata.xml of 3.0.0). All files are signed by my PGP key (even the 2.9.1 ones; that release was originally built by Mike McCandless). What I additionally found out until now (because Simon nagged me): If you compare the JAR files inside the binary ZIP file from the apache archive and the JAR files directly published on maven (for the other contribs), the MD5s/SHA1s are different even as they are created from the same source code (because the timestamps inside the JAR are different, for 2.9.1 another JDK compiler/platform was used). This interestingly does not apply to lucene-core.jar in 3.0. Because of that I see no problem with this maven release, even that they are not the orginal JAR files from the binary distrib. What is not nice, is that the svn revision number in the manifest is different, but else is exactly the same, see my comments below in earlier mails about changing the ant script for showing the SVN rev of the last changed file. So if nobody objects to release these rebuild jar files, all signed by my key, I would like to simply put them on the maven-rsync folder. Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_luc...@fucit.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: (NAG) Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9 : What to do now, any votes on adding the missing maven artifacts for : fast-vector-highlighter to 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 on the apache maven reposititory? It's not even clear to me that anything special needs to be done before publishing those jars to maven. 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 were already voted on and released -- including all of the source code in them. The safest bet least likely to anger the process gods is just to call a vote (new thread with VOTE in the subject) and cast a vote ... considering the sources has already been reviewed it should go pretty quick. : : I rebuilt the maven-dir for 2.9.1 and 3.0.0, merged them (3.0.0 is top- : level : version) and extracted only fast-vector-highlighter: : : http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/ : : I will copy this dir to the maven folder on people.a.o, when I got votes : (how many)? At least someone should check the signatures. : : By the way, we have a small error in our ant build.xml that inserts : svnversion into the manifest file. This version is not the version of the : last changed item (would be svnversion -c) but the current svn version, : even : that I checked out the corresponding tags. It's no problem at all, but not : very nice. : : Maybe we should change build.xml to call svnversion -c in future, to get : the real number. : : Uwe : : - : Uwe Schindler : H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen : http://www.thetaphi.de : eMail: u...@thetaphi.de : : : -Original Message- : From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsing...@apache.org] : Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM : To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org : Subject: Re: Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9 : : I suppose we could put up the artifacts on a dev site and then we could : vote to release both of them pretty quickly. I think that should be : easy : to do, since it pretty much only involves verifying the jar and the : signatures. : : On Dec 5, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Simon Willnauer wrote: : :hi folks, :The maven artifacts for fast-vector-highlighter have never been pushed :since it was released because there were no pom.xml.template inside :the module. I added a pom file a day ago in the context of :LUCENE-2107. I already talked to uwe and grant how to deal with this :issues and if we should push the artifact for Lucene 2.9 / 3.0. Since :this is only a metadata file we could consider rebuilding the :artefacts and publish them for those releases. I can not remember that :anything like that happened before, so we should discuss how to deal
Re: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1
+1 Mike On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: Sorry, I initially didn't want to start a vote, as Grant only proposed to maybe start one. But nobody responded (esp. to the questions in this mail) I ask again, an I will start the vote for now. Please vote, that the missing artifacts for of fast-verctor-highlighter of Lucene Java 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 should be pushed to repoX.maven.org. You can find the artifacts here: http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/ This dir contains only the maven folder to be copied to maven-rsync dir on p.a.o. The top-level version in the maven metadata is 3.0.0, which conforms to the current state on maven (so during merging both folders during build, I set preference to metadata.xml of 3.0.0). All files are signed by my PGP key (even the 2.9.1 ones; that release was originally built by Mike McCandless). What I additionally found out until now (because Simon nagged me): If you compare the JAR files inside the binary ZIP file from the apache archive and the JAR files directly published on maven (for the other contribs), the MD5s/SHA1s are different even as they are created from the same source code (because the timestamps inside the JAR are different, for 2.9.1 another JDK compiler/platform was used). This interestingly does not apply to lucene-core.jar in 3.0. Because of that I see no problem with this maven release, even that they are not the orginal JAR files from the binary distrib. What is not nice, is that the svn revision number in the manifest is different, but else is exactly the same, see my comments below in earlier mails about changing the ant script for showing the SVN rev of the last changed file. So if nobody objects to release these rebuild jar files, all signed by my key, I would like to simply put them on the maven-rsync folder. Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_luc...@fucit.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: (NAG) Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9 : What to do now, any votes on adding the missing maven artifacts for : fast-vector-highlighter to 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 on the apache maven reposititory? It's not even clear to me that anything special needs to be done before publishing those jars to maven. 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 were already voted on and released -- including all of the source code in them. The safest bet least likely to anger the process gods is just to call a vote (new thread with VOTE in the subject) and cast a vote ... considering the sources has already been reviewed it should go pretty quick. : : I rebuilt the maven-dir for 2.9.1 and 3.0.0, merged them (3.0.0 is top- : level : version) and extracted only fast-vector-highlighter: : : http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/ : : I will copy this dir to the maven folder on people.a.o, when I got votes : (how many)? At least someone should check the signatures. : : By the way, we have a small error in our ant build.xml that inserts : svnversion into the manifest file. This version is not the version of the : last changed item (would be svnversion -c) but the current svn version, : even : that I checked out the corresponding tags. It's no problem at all, but not : very nice. : : Maybe we should change build.xml to call svnversion -c in future, to get : the real number. : : Uwe : : - : Uwe Schindler : H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen : http://www.thetaphi.de : eMail: u...@thetaphi.de : : : -Original Message- : From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsing...@apache.org] : Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM : To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org : Subject: Re: Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9 : : I suppose we could put up the artifacts on a dev site and then we could : vote to release both of them pretty quickly. I think that should be : easy : to do, since it pretty much only involves verifying the jar and the : signatures. : : On Dec 5, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Simon Willnauer wrote: : :hi folks, :The maven artifacts for fast-vector-highlighter have never been pushed :since it was released because there were no pom.xml.template inside :the module. I added a pom file a day ago in the context of :LUCENE-2107. I already talked to uwe and grant how to deal with this :issues and if we should push the artifact for Lucene 2.9 / 3.0. Since :this is only a metadata file we could consider rebuilding the :artefacts and publish them for those releases. I can
Re: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1
+1 form none PMC On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: +1 Mike On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: Sorry, I initially didn't want to start a vote, as Grant only proposed to maybe start one. But nobody responded (esp. to the questions in this mail) I ask again, an I will start the vote for now. Please vote, that the missing artifacts for of fast-verctor-highlighter of Lucene Java 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 should be pushed to repoX.maven.org. You can find the artifacts here: http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/ This dir contains only the maven folder to be copied to maven-rsync dir on p.a.o. The top-level version in the maven metadata is 3.0.0, which conforms to the current state on maven (so during merging both folders during build, I set preference to metadata.xml of 3.0.0). All files are signed by my PGP key (even the 2.9.1 ones; that release was originally built by Mike McCandless). What I additionally found out until now (because Simon nagged me): If you compare the JAR files inside the binary ZIP file from the apache archive and the JAR files directly published on maven (for the other contribs), the MD5s/SHA1s are different even as they are created from the same source code (because the timestamps inside the JAR are different, for 2.9.1 another JDK compiler/platform was used). This interestingly does not apply to lucene-core.jar in 3.0. Because of that I see no problem with this maven release, even that they are not the orginal JAR files from the binary distrib. What is not nice, is that the svn revision number in the manifest is different, but else is exactly the same, see my comments below in earlier mails about changing the ant script for showing the SVN rev of the last changed file. So if nobody objects to release these rebuild jar files, all signed by my key, I would like to simply put them on the maven-rsync folder. Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_luc...@fucit.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: (NAG) Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9 : What to do now, any votes on adding the missing maven artifacts for : fast-vector-highlighter to 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 on the apache maven reposititory? It's not even clear to me that anything special needs to be done before publishing those jars to maven. 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 were already voted on and released -- including all of the source code in them. The safest bet least likely to anger the process gods is just to call a vote (new thread with VOTE in the subject) and cast a vote ... considering the sources has already been reviewed it should go pretty quick. : : I rebuilt the maven-dir for 2.9.1 and 3.0.0, merged them (3.0.0 is top- : level : version) and extracted only fast-vector-highlighter: : : http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/ : : I will copy this dir to the maven folder on people.a.o, when I got votes : (how many)? At least someone should check the signatures. : : By the way, we have a small error in our ant build.xml that inserts : svnversion into the manifest file. This version is not the version of the : last changed item (would be svnversion -c) but the current svn version, : even : that I checked out the corresponding tags. It's no problem at all, but not : very nice. : : Maybe we should change build.xml to call svnversion -c in future, to get : the real number. : : Uwe : : - : Uwe Schindler : H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen : http://www.thetaphi.de : eMail: u...@thetaphi.de : : : -Original Message- : From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsing...@apache.org] : Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM : To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org : Subject: Re: Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9 : : I suppose we could put up the artifacts on a dev site and then we could : vote to release both of them pretty quickly. I think that should be : easy : to do, since it pretty much only involves verifying the jar and the : signatures. : : On Dec 5, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Simon Willnauer wrote: : :hi folks, :The maven artifacts for fast-vector-highlighter have never been pushed :since it was released because there were no pom.xml.template inside :the module. I added a pom file a day ago in the context of :LUCENE-2107. I already talked to uwe and grant how to deal with this :issues and if we should push the artifact for Lucene 2.9 / 3.0. Since :this is only
RE: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1
I got 3 binding votes from Grant, Mike, and Ted (and one from Simon, who was a big help on Sunday evening when I created the artifacts), so I push the maven artifacts onto the rsync repo in few minutes. Thanks! - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 7:03 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0.0 and 2.9.1 Sorry, I initially didn't want to start a vote, as Grant only proposed to maybe start one. But nobody responded (esp. to the questions in this mail) I ask again, an I will start the vote for now. == == Please vote, that the missing artifacts for of fast-verctor-highlighter of Lucene Java 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 should be pushed to repoX.maven.org. You can find the artifacts here: http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/ This dir contains only the maven folder to be copied to maven-rsync dir on p.a.o. The top-level version in the maven metadata is 3.0.0, which conforms to the current state on maven (so during merging both folders during build, I set preference to metadata.xml of 3.0.0). All files are signed by my PGP key (even the 2.9.1 ones; that release was originally built by Mike McCandless). == == What I additionally found out until now (because Simon nagged me): If you compare the JAR files inside the binary ZIP file from the apache archive and the JAR files directly published on maven (for the other contribs), the MD5s/SHA1s are different even as they are created from the same source code (because the timestamps inside the JAR are different, for 2.9.1 another JDK compiler/platform was used). This interestingly does not apply to lucene-core.jar in 3.0. Because of that I see no problem with this maven release, even that they are not the orginal JAR files from the binary distrib. What is not nice, is that the svn revision number in the manifest is different, but else is exactly the same, see my comments below in earlier mails about changing the ant script for showing the SVN rev of the last changed file. So if nobody objects to release these rebuild jar files, all signed by my key, I would like to simply put them on the maven-rsync folder. Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_luc...@fucit.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:48 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: (NAG) Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9 : What to do now, any votes on adding the missing maven artifacts for : fast-vector-highlighter to 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 on the apache maven reposititory? It's not even clear to me that anything special needs to be done before publishing those jars to maven. 2.9.1 and 3.0.0 were already voted on and released -- including all of the source code in them. The safest bet least likely to anger the process gods is just to call a vote (new thread with VOTE in the subject) and cast a vote ... considering the sources has already been reviewed it should go pretty quick. : : I rebuilt the maven-dir for 2.9.1 and 3.0.0, merged them (3.0.0 is top- : level : version) and extracted only fast-vector-highlighter: : : http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/ : : I will copy this dir to the maven folder on people.a.o, when I got votes : (how many)? At least someone should check the signatures. : : By the way, we have a small error in our ant build.xml that inserts : svnversion into the manifest file. This version is not the version of the : last changed item (would be svnversion -c) but the current svn version, : even : that I checked out the corresponding tags. It's no problem at all, but not : very nice. : : Maybe we should change build.xml to call svnversion -c in future, to get : the real number. : : Uwe : : - : Uwe Schindler : H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen : http://www.thetaphi.de : eMail: u...@thetaphi.de : : : -Original Message- : From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsing...@apache.org] : Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 10:26 PM : To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org : Subject: Re: Push fast-vector-highlighter mvn artifacts for 3.0 and 2.9 : : I suppose we could put up the artifacts on a dev site and then we could : vote to release both of them pretty quickly. I think that should be : easy : to do, since it pretty much only involves verifying the jar and the : signatures
Apache Lucene java 2.9.1 released
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Release 2.9.1 of Apache Lucene java is now available. This release fixes bugs from 2.9.0, including one serious bug whereby BooleanQuery could silently fail to retrieve certain matching documents. There are also some minor API changes, including a Version parameter added to QueryParser and contrib Analyzers, so that version dependent defaults are consistent across classes, as well as un-deprecating of certain methods (we were too zealous in a few cases!). Otherwise the changes are all bug fixes and documentation improvements. This release is fully compatible with 2.9.0. We strongly recommend upgrading to 2.9.1 if you are using 2.9.0. Furthermore, because some additional APIs were deprecated in 2.9.1, to ensure a clean (JAR drop in) upgrade to 3.0 you'll need to verify your code compiles against 2.9.1 without deprecation warnings. See core changes at http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_9_1/changes/Changes.html and contrib changes at http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_9_1/changes/Contrib-Changes.html Binary and source distributions are available at http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/lucene/java/ Lucene artifacts are also available in the Maven2 repository at http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/lucene/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (SunOS) iEYEARECAAYFAkr1j7EACgkQ8RmUH25o2mE2dwCgmcHKWPx77ELDbXBI0Kqgspv1 0H8An320aMds3di+OjkAUgIld3uW3hWi =y9pl -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
2.9.1 release draft
Any suggested changes? Subject: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Lucene 2.9.1 released Release 2.9.1 of Apache Lucene is now available. This release fixes bugs from 2.9.0, including one serious bug whereby BooleanQuery could silently fail to retrieve certain matching documents. There are also some minor API changes, including a Version parameter added to QueryParser and contrib Analyzers, so that version dependent defaults are consistent across classes, as well as un-deprecating of certain methods (we were too zealous in a few cases!). Otherwise the changes are all bug fixes and documentation improvements. This release is fully compatible with 2.9.0. We strongly recommend upgrading to 2.9.1 if you are using 2.9.0. See core changes at XXX and contrib changes at YYY. Binary and source distributions are available at http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/lucene/java/ Lucene artifacts are also available in the Maven2 repository at http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/lucene/ Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene 2.9.1, take 4
+1 On Nov 3, 2009, at 2:05 AM, Michael McCandless wrote: OK, again! I've built new release artifacts from svn rev 832363 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc4_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc4_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene 2.9.1, take 4
+1, Let's release it as soon as possible! After that I start to create the first 3.0 release artifacts (after some more tuning in trunk is done, but it is almost finished). Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 2:06 AM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Cc: gene...@lucene.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene 2.9.1, take 4 OK, again! I've built new release artifacts from svn rev 832363 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc4_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc4_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene 2.9.1, take 4
People.apache.org is down? Wanted to look at it, but cannot reach from ApacheCon! Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 2:06 AM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Cc: gene...@lucene.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene 2.9.1, take 4 OK, again! I've built new release artifacts from svn rev 832363 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc4_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc4_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[VOTE] Release Apache Lucene 2.9.1, take 4
OK, again! I've built new release artifacts from svn rev 832363 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc4_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc4_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene 2.9.1, take 4
+1 On Nov 3, 2009, at 2:05 AM, Michael McCandless wrote: OK, again! I've built new release artifacts from svn rev 832363 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc4_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc4_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 3
+1 On Oct 29, 2009, at 4:27 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: OK, let's try this again! I've built new release artifacts from svn rev 831145 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 3
+1 Tested (via solr 1.4.0 RC) and everything seems good On Oct 31, 2009, at 1:59 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: OK, let's try this again! I've built new release artifacts from svn rev 831145 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. +1 -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 3
+1 30 okt 2009 kl. 00.27 skrev Michael McCandless: OK, let's try this again! I've built new release artifacts from svn rev 831145 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 3
Where are the MD5 hashes of the top level artifacts? On Oct 29, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: OK, let's try this again! I've built new release artifacts from svn rev 831145 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 3
Eek, I don't know! For some reason ant dist didn't generate them. I'll dig post them. Mike On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote: Where are the MD5 hashes of the top level artifacts? On Oct 29, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: OK, let's try this again! I've built new release artifacts from svn rev 831145 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 3
I ran into the same thing - its supposed to, but it no longer seems to. We are doing a hack do to some issue that appears to be resolved in ant - I think we can switch it to just use the hash task. Michael McCandless wrote: Eek, I don't know! For some reason ant dist didn't generate them. I'll dig post them. Mike On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote: Where are the MD5 hashes of the top level artifacts? On Oct 29, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: OK, let's try this again! I've built new release artifacts from svn rev 831145 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 3
OK I've generated them manually, and I'll go open an issue to do some ant magic :) Mike On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote: I ran into the same thing - its supposed to, but it no longer seems to. We are doing a hack do to some issue that appears to be resolved in ant - I think we can switch it to just use the hash task. Michael McCandless wrote: Eek, I don't know! For some reason ant dist didn't generate them. I'll dig post them. Mike On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote: Where are the MD5 hashes of the top level artifacts? On Oct 29, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: OK, let's try this again! I've built new release artifacts from svn rev 831145 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 3
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: OK, let's try this again! I've built new release artifacts from svn rev 831145 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. +1 -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 3
+1 my chinese corpus indexed fine this time :) On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: OK, let's try this again! I've built new release artifacts from svn rev 831145 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1/http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1changes/http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 3
+1 Michael On 10/29/09 4:27 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: OK, let's try this again! I've built new release artifacts from svn rev 831145 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2
Robert found another bug in 2.9. I resolved one yesterday and reopened LUCENE-2002. So I changed my mind: -1 :( - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:05 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Cc: gene...@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2 +1 On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: OK, I've built new release artifacts (incorporating Uwes feedback) from svn rev 829889 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/stagin g-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2
OK I'll spin a new RC. I'll also backport the thread-safety fix to contrib/benchmark (LUCENE-1994). Mike On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: Robert found another bug in 2.9. I resolved one yesterday and reopened LUCENE-2002. So I changed my mind: -1 :( - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:05 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Cc: gene...@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2 +1 On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: OK, I've built new release artifacts (incorporating Uwes feedback) from svn rev 829889 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/stagin g-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2
So the 3 issues are now back-ported to 2.9.x branch. Any other issues we want to back port? If nobody answers in a few hours I'll spin a new RC... Mike On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: OK I'll spin a new RC. I'll also backport the thread-safety fix to contrib/benchmark (LUCENE-1994). Mike On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: Robert found another bug in 2.9. I resolved one yesterday and reopened LUCENE-2002. So I changed my mind: -1 :( - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:05 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Cc: gene...@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2 +1 On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: OK, I've built new release artifacts (incorporating Uwes feedback) from svn rev 829889 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/stagin g-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2
The Highlighter issue could go - I just have to review it a bit more though ... don't wait if its not there before you start. Michael McCandless wrote: So the 3 issues are now back-ported to 2.9.x branch. Any other issues we want to back port? If nobody answers in a few hours I'll spin a new RC... Mike On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: OK I'll spin a new RC. I'll also backport the thread-safety fix to contrib/benchmark (LUCENE-1994). Mike On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: Robert found another bug in 2.9. I resolved one yesterday and reopened LUCENE-2002. So I changed my mind: -1 :( - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:05 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Cc: gene...@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2 +1 On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: OK, I've built new release artifacts (incorporating Uwes feedback) from svn rev 829889 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/stagin g-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2
if you havent already started, i found a minor problem in the smartcn public
javadocs while updating it to generics. here is a patch for 29 branch
Index:
contrib/analyzers/smartcn/src/java/org/apache/lucene/analysis/cn/smart/hhmm/HHMMSegmenter.java
===
---
contrib/analyzers/smartcn/src/java/org/apache/lucene/analysis/cn/smart/hhmm/HHMMSegmenter.java
(revision 831005)
+++
contrib/analyzers/smartcn/src/java/org/apache/lucene/analysis/cn/smart/hhmm/HHMMSegmenter.java
(working copy)
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
import org.apache.lucene.analysis.cn.smart.CharType;
import org.apache.lucene.analysis.cn.smart.Utility;
import org.apache.lucene.analysis.cn.smart.WordType;
-import org.apache.lucene.analysis.cn.smart.hhmm.PathNode;//javadoc @link
+import org.apache.lucene.analysis.cn.smart.hhmm.SegToken;//javadoc @link
/**
* Finds the optimal segmentation of a sentence into Chinese words
@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@
}
/**
- * Return a list of {...@link PathNode} representing the best segmentation
of a sentence
+ * Return a list of {...@link SegToken} representing the best segmentation
of a sentence
* @param sentence input sentence
* @return best segmentation as a {...@link List}
*/
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
So the 3 issues are now back-ported to 2.9.x branch. Any other issues
we want to back port? If nobody answers in a few hours I'll spin a
new RC...
Mike
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
OK I'll spin a new RC.
I'll also backport the thread-safety fix to contrib/benchmark
(LUCENE-1994).
Mike
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote:
Robert found another bug in 2.9. I resolved one yesterday and reopened
LUCENE-2002.
So I changed my mind: -1 :(
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
-Original Message-
From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:05 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Cc: gene...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2
+1
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
OK, I've built new release artifacts (incorporating Uwes feedback)
from svn rev 829889 (on the 2.9 branch), here:
http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/staging-
area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/staging-
area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/
Changes are here:
http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/staging-
area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/
http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/stagin
g-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/
Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene
Java 2.9.1.
Mike
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
--
Robert Muir
rcm...@gmail.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
--
Robert Muir
rcm...@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2
OK I haven't started yet... would be good to get it in. Mike On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote: The Highlighter issue could go - I just have to review it a bit more though ... don't wait if its not there before you start. Michael McCandless wrote: So the 3 issues are now back-ported to 2.9.x branch. Any other issues we want to back port? If nobody answers in a few hours I'll spin a new RC... Mike On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: OK I'll spin a new RC. I'll also backport the thread-safety fix to contrib/benchmark (LUCENE-1994). Mike On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: Robert found another bug in 2.9. I resolved one yesterday and reopened LUCENE-2002. So I changed my mind: -1 :( - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:05 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Cc: gene...@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2 +1 On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: OK, I've built new release artifacts (incorporating Uwes feedback) from svn rev 829889 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/stagin g-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2
I'm back porting now. Michael McCandless wrote: OK I haven't started yet... would be good to get it in. Mike On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote: The Highlighter issue could go - I just have to review it a bit more though ... don't wait if its not there before you start. Michael McCandless wrote: So the 3 issues are now back-ported to 2.9.x branch. Any other issues we want to back port? If nobody answers in a few hours I'll spin a new RC... Mike On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: OK I'll spin a new RC. I'll also backport the thread-safety fix to contrib/benchmark (LUCENE-1994). Mike On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: Robert found another bug in 2.9. I resolved one yesterday and reopened LUCENE-2002. So I changed my mind: -1 :( - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:05 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Cc: gene...@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2 +1 On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: OK, I've built new release artifacts (incorporating Uwes feedback) from svn rev 829889 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/stagin g-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 3
OK, let's try this again! I've built new release artifacts from svn rev 831145 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 3
+1 On Oct 29, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: OK, let's try this again! I've built new release artifacts from svn rev 831145 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc3_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2
+1 On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: OK, I've built new release artifacts (incorporating Uwes feedback) from svn rev 829889 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/staging-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/http://people.apache.org/%7Emikemccand/staging-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
LUCENE-1954 and 2.9.1
Hi, Probably I'm too late to the party pointing out that LUCENE-1954 is especially suited to be applied to the 2.9.x line. The patch is obsolete for 3.x/TRUNK. Bernd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: LUCENE-1954 and 2.9.1
Yes, this was already fixed in trunk (by adding generics, where the return value is generified to Fieldable). For 2.9.1 it is too late, I think? Mike? Mike: Do you have already a release note formulated? The main information should be the bug fixes, but also that only 2.9.1 will be binary compatible to 3.0 (when all deprecation warnings in customer's code removed), because we added new methods, deprecated the old analyzer ctors and also un-deprecated some methods. So users migrating to 3.0 should first use 2.9.1 not 2.9.0 to clean up their code from deprecations. Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Bernd Fondermann [mailto:bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:05 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: LUCENE-1954 and 2.9.1 Hi, Probably I'm too late to the party pointing out that LUCENE-1954 is especially suited to be applied to the 2.9.x line. The patch is obsolete for 3.x/TRUNK. Bernd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: LUCENE-1954 and 2.9.1
Yeah 2.9.1 is already well on its way to releasing; we could back-port this for a possible 2.9.2? I'll include the drop-in-ability in the release note for 2.9.1; don't yet have a draft but I'll make one real soon now! Mike On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: Yes, this was already fixed in trunk (by adding generics, where the return value is generified to Fieldable). For 2.9.1 it is too late, I think? Mike? Mike: Do you have already a release note formulated? The main information should be the bug fixes, but also that only 2.9.1 will be binary compatible to 3.0 (when all deprecation warnings in customer's code removed), because we added new methods, deprecated the old analyzer ctors and also un-deprecated some methods. So users migrating to 3.0 should first use 2.9.1 not 2.9.0 to clean up their code from deprecations. Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Bernd Fondermann [mailto:bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:05 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: LUCENE-1954 and 2.9.1 Hi, Probably I'm too late to the party pointing out that LUCENE-1954 is especially suited to be applied to the 2.9.x line. The patch is obsolete for 3.x/TRUNK. Bernd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: LUCENE-1954 and 2.9.1
Yeah 2.9.1 is already well on its way to releasing; we could back-port this for a possible 2.9.2? No need to backport, the patch is for 2.9 branch. I'll commit. I'll include the drop-in-ability in the release note for 2.9.1; don't yet have a draft but I'll make one real soon now! Mike On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: Yes, this was already fixed in trunk (by adding generics, where the return value is generified to Fieldable). For 2.9.1 it is too late, I think? Mike? Mike: Do you have already a release note formulated? The main information should be the bug fixes, but also that only 2.9.1 will be binary compatible to 3.0 (when all deprecation warnings in customer's code removed), because we added new methods, deprecated the old analyzer ctors and also un-deprecated some methods. So users migrating to 3.0 should first use 2.9.1 not 2.9.0 to clean up their code from deprecations. Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Bernd Fondermann [mailto:bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:05 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: LUCENE-1954 and 2.9.1 Hi, Probably I'm too late to the party pointing out that LUCENE-1954 is especially suited to be applied to the 2.9.x line. The patch is obsolete for 3.x/TRUNK. Bernd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Michael Busch busch...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, if everyone else is okay with the one-time performance hit during merge (details in LUCENE-1960), then I'm also +1 for cutting 2.9.1 tomorrow! I think this is acceptable, but we should call it out clearly in the changes to back compat section. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: 2.9.1
In the 3.0's backwards info! In 2.9.1 all stays as usual. I was a little bit confused this morning, because I have seen no relation between 2.9.1 and compress removal. It was under discussion, that we may need an update of 2.9, if we add new APIs to check for compressed fields or something similar. As 2.9.1 is not changed, nothing to do here and we can release. Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:00 AM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 2.9.1 On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Michael Busch busch...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, if everyone else is okay with the one-time performance hit during merge (details in LUCENE-1960), then I'm also +1 for cutting 2.9.1 tomorrow! I think this is acceptable, but we should call it out clearly in the changes to back compat section. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 6:07 AM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: In the 3.0's backwards info! In 2.9.1 all stays as usual. Right :) I'll start the 2.9.1 release process... I was a little bit confused this morning, because I have seen no relation between 2.9.1 and compress removal. It was under discussion, that we may need an update of 2.9, if we add new APIs to check for compressed fields or something similar. As 2.9.1 is not changed, nothing to do here and we can release. Super! There is the debate about multi/single sort API, but that will take time to net out, and I don't the we should block 2.9.1's bug fixes for that... Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
Michael McCandless wrote: There is the debate about multi/single sort API, but that will take time to net out, and I don't the we should block 2.9.1's bug fixes for that... Mike Certainly not! A couple of those bugs are quite nasty - lets release the relief! -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1
OK, I've built release artifacts from svn rev 829846 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1
Looks good. One thing: In Mark's artifacts, he changed the common-build.xml to not have -dev in the version before the release. You can see this in SVN. I am fine with having -dev in the source artefact, because if someone compiles his own bin from the artefact, it should have -dev in it, because it's not an official build. Any comments about this?: I found something in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1973 that may need un-deprecation. Can you and Mark Miller also look into it? I find the method is very useful to prevent users from creating TopFieldDocCollector manually, what produced lots of confusion about the parameters of the static ctor (have to ask the weight for it..., hard to explain for someone, who only wants scores for sorted results). Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 5:18 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Cc: gene...@lucene.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1 OK, I've built release artifacts from svn rev 829846 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: Looks good. One thing: In Mark's artifacts, he changed the common-build.xml to not have -dev in the version before the release. You can see this in SVN. I am fine with having -dev in the source artefact, because if someone compiles his own bin from the artefact, it should have -dev in it, because it's not an official build. Right, having the -dev when someone tries to build it themselves is the way we should keep it. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: Looks good. One thing: In Mark's artifacts, he changed the common-build.xml to not have -dev in the version before the release. You can see this in SVN. I am fine with having -dev in the source artefact, because if someone compiles his own bin from the artefact, it should have -dev in it, because it's not an official build. Right, having the -dev when someone tries to build it themselves is the way we should keep it. +1 So this means in general when doing the release, we leave the -dev in there? Ie, leaving the -dev doesn't affect the binary release (which gets its version, eg in the JAR's manifest, from the -Dversion=2.9.1 on the ant command line), I think? Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2
OK, I've built new release artifacts (incorporating Uwes feedback) from svn rev 829889 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2
+1 On Oct 26, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: OK, I've built new release artifacts (incorporating Uwes feedback) from svn rev 829889 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2
+1 Grant Ingersoll wrote: +1 On Oct 26, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: OK, I've built new release artifacts (incorporating Uwes feedback) from svn rev 829889 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2
OK, I've built new release artifacts (incorporating Uwes feedback) from svn rev 829889 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging- area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. +1 I tested the lucene-core.jar artifact also with my current 2.9.0 project and worked without recompilation. CheckIndex after optimizing shows 2.9.1 as version. Also JavaDocs look better than 2.9.0 and the changes for 3.0 (undeprecations) are implemented. I verified that the nasty BooleanQuery bug is fine now and therefore will set the update now to production :-) Everything else looks like Mark's 2.9.0 release. Nice work! Uwe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1, take 2
+1 On Oct 26, 2009, at 3:48 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: +1 On Oct 26, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: OK, I've built new release artifacts (incorporating Uwes feedback) from svn rev 829889 (on the 2.9 branch), here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1/ Changes are here: http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging-area/rc2_lucene2.9.1changes/ Please vote to officially release these artifacts as Apache Lucene Java 2.9.1. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
Uwe, or anyone, any objections to cutting a 2.9.1 RC tomorrow? It looks like LUCENE-1960 is going to go with the decompress-on-merge option? Mike On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: I try to get the rest of search deprecations away in 3.0, but then we should be sure, that there are no more such problems like with the posIncrement in QueryParser that need additional changes in 2.9.1 API. Maybe somebody can help me with the rest of LUCENE-1973, the rest is explain() in Scorer (hard to do because lots of references to this method even in core), then we have IndexSearcher.fieldSortDoTrackScores / IS.fieldSortDoMaxScore (which is simple I think - I even did not know that these settings existed) and last but not least the deprecated MultiValueSource. The hardest one is the first. After that all deprecations are removed, only some small things need to be solved like the overridesTokenStreamMethod in Analyzer (I would keep it in 3.0, as we cannot guarantee that every analyzer reuses tokenstreams unless we make all core/contrib analyzers final). And there are some deprecated classes to be removed in 4.0 when the support for old indexes is gone. Open is still the problem with compressed fields (see LUCENE-1960), if we use option 3 (isCompressed() deprec method, we have to add it to 2.9, too - I would not prefer this). After that 3.0 is also almost finished, I have generics (almost) everywhere in core, Parameter - enum replacement, StringBuilder, varargs (not yet finished, I have to visit method signatures and add varargs where possible). New Number() removed by valueOf(),... Some new defaults also need to be implemented. Also some final revisiting of generics should be done, there are some strange parts with collections where it is not clearly defined what's in it. Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:27 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: 2.9.1 OK we are now down to 0 issues!! It's been exciting :) Assuming nothing crops up over the weekend, I plan to start the release process on Monday. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: 2.9.1
No objections. The remaining deprecations seem ok and need no additional changes in 2.9. Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:38 AM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 2.9.1 Uwe, or anyone, any objections to cutting a 2.9.1 RC tomorrow? It looks like LUCENE-1960 is going to go with the decompress-on-merge option? Mike On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: I try to get the rest of search deprecations away in 3.0, but then we should be sure, that there are no more such problems like with the posIncrement in QueryParser that need additional changes in 2.9.1 API. Maybe somebody can help me with the rest of LUCENE-1973, the rest is explain() in Scorer (hard to do because lots of references to this method even in core), then we have IndexSearcher.fieldSortDoTrackScores / IS.fieldSortDoMaxScore (which is simple I think - I even did not know that these settings existed) and last but not least the deprecated MultiValueSource. The hardest one is the first. After that all deprecations are removed, only some small things need to be solved like the overridesTokenStreamMethod in Analyzer (I would keep it in 3.0, as we cannot guarantee that every analyzer reuses tokenstreams unless we make all core/contrib analyzers final). And there are some deprecated classes to be removed in 4.0 when the support for old indexes is gone. Open is still the problem with compressed fields (see LUCENE-1960), if we use option 3 (isCompressed() deprec method, we have to add it to 2.9, too - I would not prefer this). After that 3.0 is also almost finished, I have generics (almost) everywhere in core, Parameter - enum replacement, StringBuilder, varargs (not yet finished, I have to visit method signatures and add varargs where possible). New Number() removed by valueOf(),... Some new defaults also need to be implemented. Also some final revisiting of generics should be done, there are some strange parts with collections where it is not clearly defined what's in it. Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:27 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: 2.9.1 OK we are now down to 0 issues!! It's been exciting :) Assuming nothing crops up over the weekend, I plan to start the release process on Monday. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
Yeah, if everyone else is okay with the one-time performance hit during merge (details in LUCENE-1960), then I'm also +1 for cutting 2.9.1 tomorrow! Michael On 10/25/09 5:37 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: Uwe, or anyone, any objections to cutting a 2.9.1 RC tomorrow? It looks like LUCENE-1960 is going to go with the decompress-on-merge option? Mike On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Uwe Schindleru...@thetaphi.de wrote: I try to get the rest of search deprecations away in 3.0, but then we should be sure, that there are no more such problems like with the posIncrement in QueryParser that need additional changes in 2.9.1 API. Maybe somebody can help me with the rest of LUCENE-1973, the rest is explain() in Scorer (hard to do because lots of references to this method even in core), then we have IndexSearcher.fieldSortDoTrackScores / IS.fieldSortDoMaxScore (which is simple I think - I even did not know that these settings existed) and last but not least the deprecated MultiValueSource. The hardest one is the first. After that all deprecations are removed, only some small things need to be solved like the overridesTokenStreamMethod in Analyzer (I would keep it in 3.0, as we cannot guarantee that every analyzer reuses tokenstreams unless we make all core/contrib analyzers final). And there are some deprecated classes to be removed in 4.0 when the support for old indexes is gone. Open is still the problem with compressed fields (see LUCENE-1960), if we use option 3 (isCompressed() deprec method, we have to add it to 2.9, too - I would not prefer this). After that 3.0 is also almost finished, I have generics (almost) everywhere in core, Parameter - enum replacement, StringBuilder, varargs (not yet finished, I have to visit method signatures and add varargs where possible). New Number() removed by valueOf(),... Some new defaults also need to be implemented. Also some final revisiting of generics should be done, there are some strange parts with collections where it is not clearly defined what's in it. Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:27 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: 2.9.1 OK we are now down to 0 issues!! It's been exciting :) Assuming nothing crops up over the weekend, I plan to start the release process on Monday. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
2.9.1
OK we are now down to 0 issues!! It's been exciting :) Assuming nothing crops up over the weekend, I plan to start the release process on Monday. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: 2.9.1
I try to get the rest of search deprecations away in 3.0, but then we should be sure, that there are no more such problems like with the posIncrement in QueryParser that need additional changes in 2.9.1 API. Maybe somebody can help me with the rest of LUCENE-1973, the rest is explain() in Scorer (hard to do because lots of references to this method even in core), then we have IndexSearcher.fieldSortDoTrackScores / IS.fieldSortDoMaxScore (which is simple I think - I even did not know that these settings existed) and last but not least the deprecated MultiValueSource. The hardest one is the first. After that all deprecations are removed, only some small things need to be solved like the overridesTokenStreamMethod in Analyzer (I would keep it in 3.0, as we cannot guarantee that every analyzer reuses tokenstreams unless we make all core/contrib analyzers final). And there are some deprecated classes to be removed in 4.0 when the support for old indexes is gone. Open is still the problem with compressed fields (see LUCENE-1960), if we use option 3 (isCompressed() deprec method, we have to add it to 2.9, too - I would not prefer this). After that 3.0 is also almost finished, I have generics (almost) everywhere in core, Parameter - enum replacement, StringBuilder, varargs (not yet finished, I have to visit method signatures and add varargs where possible). New Number() removed by valueOf(),... Some new defaults also need to be implemented. Also some final revisiting of generics should be done, there are some strange parts with collections where it is not clearly defined what's in it. Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:27 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: 2.9.1 OK we are now down to 0 issues!! It's been exciting :) Assuming nothing crops up over the weekend, I plan to start the release process on Monday. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: I try to get the rest of search deprecations away in 3.0, but then we should be sure, that there are no more such problems like with the posIncrement in QueryParser that need additional changes in 2.9.1 API. That sounds like a big job that shouldn't hold up 2.9.1, which fixes serious bugs in 2.9.0. Removing all deprecations is essentially finishing 3.0 (by the original plan at least). -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: 2.9.1
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: I try to get the rest of search deprecations away in 3.0, but then we should be sure, that there are no more such problems like with the posIncrement in QueryParser that need additional changes in 2.9.1 API. That sounds like a big job that shouldn't hold up 2.9.1, which fixes serious bugs in 2.9.0. Removing all deprecations is essentially finishing 3.0 (by the original plan at least). It's 95% done :-) Because of this I wrote this eMail. Uwe - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
On 10/23/09 3:00 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: I try to get the rest of search deprecations away in 3.0, but then we should be sure, that there are no more such problems like with the posIncrement in QueryParser that need additional changes in 2.9.1 API. Maybe somebody can help me with the rest of LUCENE-1973, the rest is explain() in Scorer (hard to do because lots of references to this method even in core), then we have IndexSearcher.fieldSortDoTrackScores / IS.fieldSortDoMaxScore (which is simple I think - I even did not know that these settings existed) and last but not least the deprecated MultiValueSource. The hardest one is the first. After that all deprecations are removed, only some small things need to be solved like the overridesTokenStreamMethod in Analyzer (I would keep it in 3.0, as we cannot guarantee that every analyzer reuses tokenstreams unless we make all core/contrib analyzers final). And there are some deprecated classes to be removed in 4.0 when the support for old indexes is gone. Open is still the problem with compressed fields (see LUCENE-1960), if we use option 3 (isCompressed() deprec method, we have to add it to 2.9, too - I would not prefer this). Why would we have to add the method to 2.9.1? After that 3.0 is also almost finished, I have generics (almost) everywhere in core, Parameter - enum replacement, StringBuilder, varargs (not yet finished, I have to visit method signatures and add varargs where possible). New Number() removed by valueOf(),... Some new defaults also need to be implemented. Also some final revisiting of generics should be done, there are some strange parts with collections where it is not clearly defined what's in it. Thanks for all your hard work, Uwe! Michael Uwe - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:27 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: 2.9.1 OK we are now down to 0 issues!! It's been exciting :) Assuming nothing crops up over the weekend, I plan to start the release process on Monday. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: 2.9.1
Open is still the problem with compressed fields (see LUCENE-1960), if we use option 3 (isCompressed() deprec method, we have to add it to 2.9, too - I would not prefer this). See the issue for details. I do not want to add this method, as it would break bw compatibility in 2.9 if inserted there (but if it is in 3.0 it should also be available in 2.9). Otheriwse it breaks 3.0 which is also bad. At this point, I can say, if you have removed all deprecations from your code in 2.9, you can drop in the 3.0 JAR. Adding such a method is a hard break, because you cannot read compressed fields easily. Why would we have to add the method to 2.9.1? After that 3.0 is also almost finished, I have generics (almost) everywhere in core, Parameter - enum replacement, StringBuilder, varargs (not yet finished, I have to visit method signatures and add varargs where possible). New Number() removed by valueOf(),... Some new defaults also need to be implemented. Also some final revisiting of generics should be done, there are some strange parts with collections where it is not clearly defined what's in it. Thanks for all your hard work, Uwe! Thanks! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: 2.9.1
Well, we should then have added it to 2.9.0 already. Normally we don't introduce new APIs in bugfix releases. This could be a candidate for the backwards-compat break section: If you have compressed fields you need to change your code, otherwise drop-in will work. 2.9.1 already has such changes (see the recently closed issues about Version parameters in QueryParser and Analyzers). I still prefer simple decompressing compressed fields on merge, this is the best solution for easy migration. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Compile failure in 2.9.1 Highlighter
Can someone help me figure this out. The Highlighter test runs and passes for me in Eclipse. It obviously compiles too. But when I try and compile with the ant build scripts, I get: [javac] /home/mark/workspace/lucene_2_9/contrib/highlighter/src/test/org/apache/lucene/search/highlight/HighlighterTest.java:266: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : method newIntRange(java.lang.String,int,int,boolean,boolean) [javac] location: class org.apache.lucene.search.NumericRangeQuery [javac] query = NumericRangeQuery.newIntRange(NUMERIC_FIELD_NAME, 2, 6, true, true); But that method appears to exist - I'm momentarily at a loss - someone see the issue? -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Compile failure in 2.9.1 Highlighter
Not sure... but could it just be that you are relying on autoboxing, which is a Java5 feature, and the core is still marked for Java1.4 syntax? -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote: Can someone help me figure this out. The Highlighter test runs and passes for me in Eclipse. It obviously compiles too. But when I try and compile with the ant build scripts, I get: [javac] /home/mark/workspace/lucene_2_9/contrib/highlighter/src/test/org/apache/lucene/search/highlight/HighlighterTest.java:266: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : method newIntRange(java.lang.String,int,int,boolean,boolean) [javac] location: class org.apache.lucene.search.NumericRangeQuery [javac] query = NumericRangeQuery.newIntRange(NUMERIC_FIELD_NAME, 2, 6, true, true); But that method appears to exist - I'm momentarily at a loss - someone see the issue? -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Compile failure in 2.9.1 Highlighter
Thank you, than you, thank you ... I could have run around that for years. Yonik Seeley wrote: Not sure... but could it just be that you are relying on autoboxing, which is a Java5 feature, and the core is still marked for Java1.4 syntax? -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote: Can someone help me figure this out. The Highlighter test runs and passes for me in Eclipse. It obviously compiles too. But when I try and compile with the ant build scripts, I get: [javac] /home/mark/workspace/lucene_2_9/contrib/highlighter/src/test/org/apache/lucene/search/highlight/HighlighterTest.java:266: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : method newIntRange(java.lang.String,int,int,boolean,boolean) [javac] location: class org.apache.lucene.search.NumericRangeQuery [javac] query = NumericRangeQuery.newIntRange(NUMERIC_FIELD_NAME, 2, 6, true, true); But that method appears to exist - I'm momentarily at a loss - someone see the issue? -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: Compile failure in 2.9.1 Highlighter
Lucene 2.9 is Java 1.4 only (in build script), so autoboxing does not work. With trunk it works, but not with 2.9. - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: ysee...@gmail.com [mailto:ysee...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yonik Seeley Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 4:19 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Compile failure in 2.9.1 Highlighter Not sure... but could it just be that you are relying on autoboxing, which is a Java5 feature, and the core is still marked for Java1.4 syntax? -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote: Can someone help me figure this out. The Highlighter test runs and passes for me in Eclipse. It obviously compiles too. But when I try and compile with the ant build scripts, I get: [javac] /home/mark/workspace/lucene_2_9/contrib/highlighter/src/test/org/apache/lu cene/search/highlight/HighlighterTest.java:266: cannot find symbol [javac] symbol : method newIntRange(java.lang.String,int,int,boolean,boolean) [javac] location: class org.apache.lucene.search.NumericRangeQuery [javac] query = NumericRangeQuery.newIntRange(NUMERIC_FIELD_NAME, 2, 6, true, true); But that method appears to exist - I'm momentarily at a loss - someone see the issue? -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I can cut the 2.9.1 release, but... should we wait a bit to see whether other issues come up? Or do it, now? Other issues came up, and were quickly fixed - nice job guys!. I don't see anything else serious lurking about... seems like the 2.9.1 release process could be started soon? -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I can cut the 2.9.1 release, but... should we wait a bit to see whether other issues come up? Or do it, now? Other issues came up, and were quickly fixed - nice job guys!. I don't see anything else serious lurking about... seems like the 2.9.1 release process could be started soon? +1, I'll try to get an RC out tomorrow. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: 2.9.1
Please wait and look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1987 We have some inconsistencies between QueryParser and the new StandardAnalyzer with stop word posIncr. There is also a patch for 2.9 there! - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 6:03 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org; yo...@lucidimagination.com Subject: Re: 2.9.1 On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I can cut the 2.9.1 release, but... should we wait a bit to see whether other issues come up? Or do it, now? Other issues came up, and were quickly fixed - nice job guys!. I don't see anything else serious lurking about... seems like the 2.9.1 release process could be started soon? +1, I'll try to get an RC out tomorrow. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
OK, so now we're up to 3 2.9.1 issues to be resolved. Mike On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote: Please wait and look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1987 We have some inconsistencies between QueryParser and the new StandardAnalyzer with stop word posIncr. There is also a patch for 2.9 there! - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de -Original Message- From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 6:03 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org; yo...@lucidimagination.com Subject: Re: 2.9.1 On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I can cut the 2.9.1 release, but... should we wait a bit to see whether other issues come up? Or do it, now? Other issues came up, and were quickly fixed - nice job guys!. I don't see anything else serious lurking about... seems like the 2.9.1 release process could be started soon? +1, I'll try to get an RC out tomorrow. Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
Nice :) Fix looks good... I'll commit soon. Thanks! Mike On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote: Not that I have any comfort with spans - but I'm good with a shovel ;) Mark Miller wrote: Got it I think. Michael McCandless wrote: I've marked fix for 2.9.1. Can someone w/ comfort in this (span queries) have a look? If nobody jumps after a while I'll try to dig in... Mike On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I can cut the 2.9.1 release, but... should we wait a bit to see whether other issues come up? I took a quick peek at the test code provided by Peter... and this certainly looks like a bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1986 I'm heads down on the Solr release right now though, so I haven't had time to dig in. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:43 AM, John Wang john.w...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe it is not a big deal. But I would still like to know why in MultiTermDocs, if term is not null, termDocs(term) is not called, rather termDocs() is. John are you referring to the protected TermDocs termDocs(IndexReader reader) method in DirectoryReader.MultiTermDocs? Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:43 AM, John Wang john.w...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe it is not a big deal. But I would still like to know why in MultiTermDocs, if term is not null, termDocs(term) is not called, rather termDocs() is. That would work, but it would sometimes be less efficient. By calling termDocs() only, MultiTermDocs can use the more efficient seek(termEnum) rather than seek(term) that termDocs(term) would otherwise use. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
ah! Thanks Yonik! -John On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.comwrote: On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:43 AM, John Wang john.w...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe it is not a big deal. But I would still like to know why in MultiTermDocs, if term is not null, termDocs(term) is not called, rather termDocs() is. That would work, but it would sometimes be less efficient. By calling termDocs() only, MultiTermDocs can use the more efficient seek(termEnum) rather than seek(term) that termDocs(term) would otherwise use. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I can cut the 2.9.1 release, but... should we wait a bit to see whether other issues come up? I took a quick peek at the test code provided by Peter... and this certainly looks like a bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1986 I'm heads down on the Solr release right now though, so I haven't had time to dig in. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
I've marked fix for 2.9.1. Can someone w/ comfort in this (span queries) have a look? If nobody jumps after a while I'll try to dig in... Mike On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I can cut the 2.9.1 release, but... should we wait a bit to see whether other issues come up? I took a quick peek at the test code provided by Peter... and this certainly looks like a bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1986 I'm heads down on the Solr release right now though, so I haven't had time to dig in. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
Got it I think. Michael McCandless wrote: I've marked fix for 2.9.1. Can someone w/ comfort in this (span queries) have a look? If nobody jumps after a while I'll try to dig in... Mike On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I can cut the 2.9.1 release, but... should we wait a bit to see whether other issues come up? I took a quick peek at the test code provided by Peter... and this certainly looks like a bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1986 I'm heads down on the Solr release right now though, so I haven't had time to dig in. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
I think this code is correct? The null is forwarded so SegmentReader returns AllDocsEnum. Mike On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 1:09 PM, John Wang john.w...@gmail.com wrote: In DirectoryReader$MultiTermDocs implementation: in method: protected TermDocs termDocs(IndexReader reader) return term==null ? reader.termDocs(null) : reader.termDocs(); Is this correct? Shouldn't it be: return term==null ? reader.termDocs() : reader.termDocs(term); Thanks -John On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I can cut the 2.9.1 release, but... should we wait a bit to see whether other issues come up? I took a quick peek at the test code provided by Peter... and this certainly looks like a bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1986 I'm heads down on the Solr release right now though, so I haven't had time to dig in. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
Oh ok. I was thinking that if term is not null, termDocs(Term) would be called. -John On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I think this code is correct? The null is forwarded so SegmentReader returns AllDocsEnum. Mike On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 1:09 PM, John Wang john.w...@gmail.com wrote: In DirectoryReader$MultiTermDocs implementation: in method: protected TermDocs termDocs(IndexReader reader) return term==null ? reader.termDocs(null) : reader.termDocs(); Is this correct? Shouldn't it be: return term==null ? reader.termDocs() : reader.termDocs(term); Thanks -John On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I can cut the 2.9.1 release, but... should we wait a bit to see whether other issues come up? I took a quick peek at the test code provided by Peter... and this certainly looks like a bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1986 I'm heads down on the Solr release right now though, so I haven't had time to dig in. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
Not that I have any comfort with spans - but I'm good with a shovel ;) Mark Miller wrote: Got it I think. Michael McCandless wrote: I've marked fix for 2.9.1. Can someone w/ comfort in this (span queries) have a look? If nobody jumps after a while I'll try to dig in... Mike On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I can cut the 2.9.1 release, but... should we wait a bit to see whether other issues come up? I took a quick peek at the test code provided by Peter... and this certainly looks like a bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1986 I'm heads down on the Solr release right now though, so I haven't had time to dig in. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
Hi guys: Maybe it is not a big deal. But I would still like to know why in MultiTermDocs, if term is not null, termDocs(term) is not called, rather termDocs() is. Thanks -John On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 10:16 AM, John Wang john.w...@gmail.com wrote: Oh ok. I was thinking that if term is not null, termDocs(Term) would be called. -John On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I think this code is correct? The null is forwarded so SegmentReader returns AllDocsEnum. Mike On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 1:09 PM, John Wang john.w...@gmail.com wrote: In DirectoryReader$MultiTermDocs implementation: in method: protected TermDocs termDocs(IndexReader reader) return term==null ? reader.termDocs(null) : reader.termDocs(); Is this correct? Shouldn't it be: return term==null ? reader.termDocs() : reader.termDocs(term); Thanks -John On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I can cut the 2.9.1 release, but... should we wait a bit to see whether other issues come up? I took a quick peek at the test code provided by Peter... and this certainly looks like a bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1986 I'm heads down on the Solr release right now though, so I haven't had time to dig in. -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
2.9.1
I can cut the 2.9.1 release, but... should we wait a bit to see whether other issues come up? Or do it, now? If there are any issues you've already fixed on trunk but think should also be included in 2.9.1, please back-port them! Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
can someone take a look at LUCENE-1963? :) (there were no objections to back-porting the fix, but i do not have permission to do it) On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I can cut the 2.9.1 release, but... should we wait a bit to see whether other issues come up? Or do it, now? If there are any issues you've already fixed on trunk but think should also be included in 2.9.1, please back-port them! Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
Re: 2.9.1
Lets cut a release with this scorer bug fix? On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I can cut the 2.9.1 release, but... should we wait a bit to see whether other issues come up? Or do it, now? If there are any issues you've already fixed on trunk but think should also be included in 2.9.1, please back-port them! Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
Ooh, I'll go commit that one (though it's kinda weird that you're not able to do so)... Any others? Mike On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote: can someone take a look at LUCENE-1963? :) (there were no objections to back-porting the fix, but i do not have permission to do it) On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I can cut the 2.9.1 release, but... should we wait a bit to see whether other issues come up? Or do it, now? If there are any issues you've already fixed on trunk but think should also be included in 2.9.1, please back-port them! Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: 2.9.1
Contrib committers do not have karma for branches - just the trunk contrib area. I assume its just because of how the karma is granted - not wildcard based eg */contrib/*. Michael McCandless wrote: Ooh, I'll go commit that one (though it's kinda weird that you're not able to do so)... Any others? Mike On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote: can someone take a look at LUCENE-1963? :) (there were no objections to back-porting the fix, but i do not have permission to do it) On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: I can cut the 2.9.1 release, but... should we wait a bit to see whether other issues come up? Or do it, now? If there are any issues you've already fixed on trunk but think should also be included in 2.9.1, please back-port them! Mike - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
