1.4.0 RC

2009-10-13 Thread Grant Ingersoll 

http://people.apache.org/~gsingers/solr/1.4.0-RC/

I have not signed these artifacts yet.  I have to generate a stronger  
key b/c mine is only 2048.  Am working through that now.

Re: 1.4.0 RC

2009-10-13 Thread Israel Ekpo 
This is awesome!

Thanks to all who made this possible.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.orgwrote:

 http://people.apache.org/~gsingers/solr/1.4.0-RC/http://people.apache.org/%7Egsingers/solr/1.4.0-RC/

 I have not signed these artifacts yet.  I have to generate a stronger key
 b/c mine is only 2048.  Am working through that now.




-- 
Good Enough is not good enough.
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.
Quality First. Measure Twice. Cut Once.

Re: 1.4.0 RC

2009-10-13 Thread Chris Hostetter 

: http://people.apache.org/~gsingers/solr/1.4.0-RC/

I suspect we're going to want to wait for Lucene 2.9.1 - particularly 
because of LUCENE-1974.

As far as i can tell we don't ever call setAllowDocsOutOfOrder(false) in 
Solr so this bug could bite us.


-Hoss

Re: 1.4.0 RC

2009-10-13 Thread Yonik Seeley 
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
 : http://people.apache.org/~gsingers/solr/1.4.0-RC/

 I suspect we're going to want to wait for Lucene 2.9.1 - particularly
 because of LUCENE-1974.

I know I was lobbying for not using non-released versions of Lucene
due to the increase in flux, but I really meant non-bugfix branches.
Seems safe to use an unreleased 2.9.1 branch?

-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com

Re: 1.4.0 RC

2009-10-13 Thread Yonik Seeley 
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
 On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Chris Hostetter
 hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
 : http://people.apache.org/~gsingers/solr/1.4.0-RC/

 I suspect we're going to want to wait for Lucene 2.9.1 - particularly
 because of LUCENE-1974.

 I know I was lobbying for not using non-released versions of Lucene
 due to the increase in flux, but I really meant non-bugfix branches.
 Seems safe to use an unreleased 2.9.1 branch?

If there are no objections, I'll update to the fixed 2.9.1 branch.
We can figure out whether to wait for 2.9.1 or not later when we know
the schedule.

-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com

Re: 1.4.0 RC

2009-10-13 Thread Koji Sekiguchi 

Yonik Seeley wrote:

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
  

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:


: http://people.apache.org/~gsingers/solr/1.4.0-RC/

I suspect we're going to want to wait for Lucene 2.9.1 - particularly
because of LUCENE-1974.
  

I know I was lobbying for not using non-released versions of Lucene
due to the increase in flux, but I really meant non-bugfix branches.
Seems safe to use an unreleased 2.9.1 branch?



If there are no objections, I'll update to the fixed 2.9.1 branch.
We can figure out whether to wait for 2.9.1 or not later when we know
the schedule.

  

+1 to update to the fixed 2.9 branch and proceed to release RC.

Koji

--
http://www.rondhuit.com/en/