Re: Old programmers do fade away

Hi Erick, Thank you for this email. Wow, 40 years! I was always intrigued by your programming longevity! Thank you for all your contributions. Any sailing still going on? Enjoy part 2 :) Otis -- Monitoring - Log Management - Alerting - Anomaly Detection Solr & Elasticsearch Consulting

Re: 8.8 Release

Thanks for following up on this Ishan ... I intend to get SOLR-15059 and -15036 into 8.8 as well. I should have a proper PR up for SOLR-15036 by Friday sometime, which seems to align with other's timeframes Cheers, Tim On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:54 AM David Smiley wrote: > Happy New Year! > I

Re: RFC: N-2 compatibility for file formats

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 4:40 AM Simon Willnauer wrote: > You can open a reader on an index created by > version N-2, but you cannot open an IndexWriter on it > +1 There should definitely be more consideration given to back compat in general... it's caused a ton of pain to users over time.

Re: RFC: N-2 compatibility for file formats

I see a more difficult problem in the opposite - say, a new Query that requires something from the index that older indexes (codecs) don't have. Then running such a query would result in, I assume, an exception? Things get awkward when you have existing systems that wish to gradually upgrade so

Re: additional term meta data

Thank you, Martin! You can apply the patch to the 8.7 build by just ignoring the changes to Lucene90xxx. Appreciate the help and guidance! -John On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:36 AM Martin Gainty wrote: > appears you are targeting 9.0 for your code > >

Re: additional term meta data

appears you are targeting 9.0 for your code lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene90/Lucene90FieldInfosFormat.java (Lucene90FIeldInfosFormat.java is not

Re: RFC: N-2 compatibility for file formats

In practice what would this mean? We relax the restriction that David mentions, and we keep old codecs around in backwards-codecs for two major releases instead of one? Are there other implications? Suppose we had a Query that relied on a specific index format, which gets retired. We keep the

Re: additional term meta data

Hey Martin: There is a test case in the PR we created on our own fork: https://github.com/dashbase/lucene-solr/pull/1, which also contains some example code on how to access in the PR description. Here is the link to the beginning of the tests:

Re: RFC: N-2 compatibility for file formats

+1 -- Lucene should not _prevent_ this. I forget where things stood in the past conversations about this subject... I think most recently raised by Erick Ericson. I recall that we don't want to maintain the code to read older indices... which I sympathize with... but I recall there is code that

Re: 8.8 Release

Happy New Year! I would much prefer that ensure 8.8 includes SOLR-14923 (a bad nested docs performance issue) ~ David Smiley Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:59 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >

Re: RFC: N-2 compatibility for file formats

Sounds great, +1 On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 3:10 PM Simon Willnauer wrote: > Hello all, > > Currently Lucene supports reading and writing indices that have been > created with the current or previous (N-1) version of Lucene. Lucene > refuses to open an index created by N-2 or earlier versions. > I

Re: 8.8 Release

Happy New Year! I was supposed to start the process tomorrow, but I think we're not ready yet? I see SOLR-15052 still under review with intention of inclusion into 8.8. Would it be reasonable to cut the release branch end of this week and start the RC process around 13th January? If there are any

Re: additional term meta data

how to access first and last? which version will you be merging From: John Wang Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 8:19 PM To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: additional term meta data Hi folks: We like to propose a feature to add additional per-term metadata to

Re: additional term meta data

how to access first and last doc-id? for which lucene version will you be targeting your merge? Request: please submit testcase to show proper operation Thanks John! martin- From: John Wang Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 8:19 PM To: dev@lucene.apache.org

RFC: N-2 compatibility for file formats

Hello all, Currently Lucene supports reading and writing indices that have been created with the current or previous (N-1) version of Lucene. Lucene refuses to open an index created by N-2 or earlier versions. I would like to propose that Lucene adds support for opening indices created by version

RE: [JENKINS] $PROJECT_NAME (${ENV,var="JAVA"}) - Build # $BUILD_NUMBER - $BUILD_STATUS!

Hi, the variables expansion of build emails is broken. I downgraded Jenkins to preious version. Looks like this issue: https://issues.jenkins.io/browse/JENKINS-64556 The whole thing looks like the TokenMacro Plugin cannot handle the neweset Jenkins version and triggers a NPE. This seem to