Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.11.0 RC1

+1 SUCCESS! [1:09:31.902484] -Chris > On 3 Jun 2024, at 12:29, Benjamin Trent wrote: > > Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.11.0 > > The artifacts can be downloaded from: >

Re: Lucene 9.11

> On 28 May 2024, at 14:57, Benjamin Trent wrote: > > ... > > Did we figure out the hppc concerns? I saw some PR activity, wanted to make > sure we are all still good with starting the release process this week. Hppc is no longer a concern. The issue has been addressed by

Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1

> On 27 May 2024, at 09:08, Chris Hegarty > wrote: > >> ... > > That sounds like quite a lot of classes. How much is actually necessary to > allow to remove the dependency? And/Or is there a place of natural place > where it makes logical sense to subset? Please

Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1

Hi, > +1 to moving the hppc fork to oal.internal. +1 > On 26 May 2024, at 13:33, Bruno Roustant wrote: > > Currently the hppc fork in Lucene is composed of 15 classes and 8 test > classes. > Forking everything in hppc would mean 525 classes and 193 test classes. I'm > not sure we want to

Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1

Hi David, > On 25 May 2024, at 21:08, Dawid Weiss wrote: > > ... > > I understand it's a pain if the order changes from run to run but I don't see > a way this can be avoided ([1] is the issue you mentioned on gh). Tests (and > code) shouldn't rely on map/set ordering, although I realize it

Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1

Hi, For awareness, I would to like to raise a potential issue that we’ve run into when testing Elasticsearch with the latest 9.x branch. A recent change in 9.x [1] has introduced a dependency on hppc 0.9.1. Hppc has added an explicit automatic module name in its manifest, which effectively

Re: Lucene 9.11

+1 -Chris. > On 14 May 2024, at 16:10, Adrien Grand wrote: > > +1 the 9.11 changelog looks great! > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 4:50 PM Benjamin Trent wrote: > Hey y'all, > > Looking at changes for 9.11, we are building a significant list. I propose we > do a release in the next couple of

Re: Query about the GitHub statistics for Lucene

Hi Mike, > On 6 Mar 2024, at 10:47, Michael McCandless wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 4:41 AM Chris Hegarty > wrote: > > Seems that I’ve fallen into the newbie PMC Chair rabbit hole! ;-) - the > reporting tool has long standing issues. Maybe they’re fixable, m

Re: Query about the GitHub statistics for Lucene

Hi, Seems that I’ve fallen into the newbie PMC Chair rabbit hole! ;-) - the reporting tool has long standing issues. Maybe they’re fixable, maybe not, but it’s possible we don’t necessarily need it now. > On 5 Mar 2024, at 18:22, Michael McCandless wrote: > > ... > @Mike. Would it be

Re: Query about the GitHub statistics for Lucene

> On 5 Mar 2024, at 13:26, Robert Muir wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 4:50 AM Chris Hegarty > wrote: >> It appears that there is no GH activity for 2024! Clearly this is incorrect. >> I’ve yet to track down what’s going on with this. Familiar to anyone here? >

Query about the GitHub statistics for Lucene

Hi, In preparation for the project’s upcoming ASF board report, I came across and reported [1] an issue with the GH statistics, available at: https://reporter.apache.org/wizard/statistics?lucene It appears that there is no GH activity for 2024! Clearly this is incorrect. I’ve yet to track

Re: [Vote] Bump the Lucene main branch to Java 21

fault! Apology not needed. Thank you, the the other contributors on that PR, so much for getting this done. I’m super happy with the outcome. -Chris. > Uwe > > Am 23.02.2024 um 12:24 schrieb Chris Hegarty: >> Hi, >> >> Since the discussion on bumping the Lucene main br

[Vote] Bump the Lucene main branch to Java 21

Hi, Since the discussion on bumping the Lucene main branch to Java 21 is winding down, let's hold a vote on this important change. Once bumped, the next major release of Lucene (whenever that will be) will require a version of Java greater than or equal to Java 21. The vote will be open for

Re: Bump the Lucene main branch to Java 21

dy on Java 17, while 9x is on Java 11, so the scenario already exists, just that the range is changing with this proposal. Hope this helps. -Chris. > > Mike McCandless > > http://blog.mikemccandless.com > > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 3:58 AM Chris Hegarty > wrote: >

Bump the Lucene main branch to Java 21

Hi, A number of us have been iterating on a PR to bump the Lucene main branch to a minimum of Java 21 [1]. The work is in a good state and is almost ready to commit. While the changes themselves are not large, the impact is arguably larger. So I’m raising awareness here with the wider group.

Re: Welcome Zhang Chao as Lucene committer

Congratulations and welcome!! -Chris. > On 20 Feb 2024, at 17:28, Adrien Grand wrote: > > I'm pleased to announce that Zhang Chao has accepted the PMC's > invitation to become a committer. > > Chao, the tradition is that new committers introduce themselves with a > brief bio. > >

Re: Announcing githubsearch!

Awesome! I love it. Very useful. -Chris. > On 20 Feb 2024, at 11:40, Michael McCandless > wrote: > > Thank you for all the warm feedback everyone, and all the exciting issues > already uncovered / ideas for improvements. Now I have some more fun work to > do! > > Mike McCandless > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.10.0 RC1

+1 SUCCESS! [1:14:49.683559] -Chris. > On 15 Feb 2024, at 21:08, Uwe Schindler wrote: > > Hi, > I used Stefan Vodita's Hack to make the Smoketester run on a large list of > JDKs: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13108 > See the console of running Java 11, Java 17, Java 19, Java 20,

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Lucene 9.9.2 released

The Lucene PMC is pleased to announce the release of Apache Lucene 9.9.2. Apache Lucene is a high-performance, full-featured text search engine library written entirely in Java. It is a technology suitable for nearly any application that requires full-text search, especially cross-platform.

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.2 RC1

It's been >72h since the vote was initiated and the result is: +1 11 (9 binding) 0 0 -1 0 This vote has PASSED -Chris. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:

[VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.2 RC1

Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.9.2 The artifacts can be downloaded from: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.2-RC1-rev-a2939784c4ca60bc28bf488b5479c02fc2e5e22c You can run the smoke tester directly with this command: python3 -u

Re: The need for a Lucene 9.9.2 release

Hi Marios, If you have a link to the CrateDB issue, I’ll add it to JDK-8323659. -Chris. > On 24 Jan 2024, at 14:26, Chris Hegarty > wrote: > > Hi Marios, > > Thanks for raising awareness of this JDK bug. > > Just to be clear, and for other readers o

Re: The need for a Lucene 9.9.2 release

had a respin of JDK 21.0.2, but that was not possible at the time :-( -Chris. > > Cheers > -- Marios > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 4:08 PM Chris Hegarty > wrote: > Hi Uwe, > > > On 24 Jan 2024, at 13:29, Uwe Schindler wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Now I under

Re: The need for a Lucene 9.9.2 release

k. We’ll stay the coarse for Java 22 support in 9.10, as would be the case if 9.9.2 was not a thing. -Chris. > Uwe > > Am 23.01.2024 um 18:36 schrieb Chris Hegarty: >> Hi, >> >> We’ve encounter a serious issue with the recent Lucene 9.9.1 release, which >> warra

Re: The need for a Lucene 9.9.2 release

Hi Christine, Including 13014 seems reasonable, and the issue appears quite severe. Let’s see if we can get 13014 reviewed and merged in the next day or two. If so, then it seems reasonable to include. -Chris. > On 23 Jan 2024, at 18:30, Christine Poerschke (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) > wrote: > >

The need for a Lucene 9.9.2 release

Hi, We’ve encounter a serious issue with the recent Lucene 9.9.1 release, which warrants a 9.9.2. The issue is a NPE when sampling for quantization in Lucene99HnswScalarQuantizedVectorsFormat [1]. Thankfully Ben has already resolved the issue, and backported it to the appropriate branches.

Re: Welcome Stefan Vodita as Lucene committter

Welcome Stefan. -Chris. > On 18 Jan 2024, at 15:53, Michael McCandless > wrote: > > Hi Team, > > I'm pleased to announce that Stefan Vodita has accepted the Lucene PMC's > invitation to become a committer! > > Stefan, the tradition is that new committers introduce themselves with a >

Re: Lucene v9.9.1: org.apache.lucene.search.ScoreMode

Hi, I see no issue. ScoreMode is present in lucene-core-9.9.1.jar $ curl https://dlcdn.apache.org/lucene/java/9.9.1/lucene-9.9.1.tgz > lucene-9.9.1.tgz ... $ $ tar -xzf lucene-9.9.1.tgz $ jar -tvf lucene-9.9.1/modules/lucene-core-9.9.1.jar | grep ScoreMode 1618 Wed Dec 13 11:06:00 GMT

Re: [JENKINS] Lucene » Lucene-NightlyTests-9.9 - Build # 18 - Unstable!

Hi Dawid > On 16 Dec 2023, at 07:36, Dawid Weiss wrote: > > > This one has been fixed on branch_9x and on main - it's a broken test. Should > we apply it on 9_9 to quiet down CI or is the branch frozen? I completed the RM tasks for the 9.9.1 release, and just merged the fix for this test

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.1 RC1

Thanks, -Chris. > > The second run succeeded on a slow vm. > SUCCESS! [3:34:11.606597] > > +1. > > Dawid > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 12:55 PM Chris Hegarty > wrote: > Hi, > > Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.9.1 > > The artifacts

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Lucene 9.9.1 released

. This patch release contains bug fixes that are highlighted below. The release is available for immediate download at: https://lucene.apache.org/core/downloads.html Lucene 9.9.1 Release Highlights Bug fixes • JVM SIGSEGV crash when compiling computeCommonPrefixLengthAndBuildHistogram (Chris

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.1 RC1

Hi, It's been >72h since the vote was initiated and the result is: +1 9 (8 binding) 0 0 -1 0 This vote has PASSED -Chris. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.1 RC1

Dawid, > On 15 Dec 2023, at 09:56, Chris Hegarty > wrote: > >> ... >> File: >> /tmp/smoke_lucene_9.9.1_eee32cbf5e072a8c9d459c349549094230038308/lucene.lucene-9.9.1-src.tgz.gpg.verify.log >>verify trust >> GPG: gpg: WARNING: This key is not cer

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.1 RC1

Hi Dawid, > On 14 Dec 2023, at 17:47, Dawid Weiss wrote: > > SUCCESS! [0:14:52.296147] > > What?!... How is that possible, Mike? > > I get gpg warnings - is this normal? > > File: > /tmp/smoke_lucene_9.9.1_eee32cbf5e072a8c9d459c349549094230038308/lucene.lucene-9.9.1-src.tgz.gpg.verify.log

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.1 RC1

And (short) release note: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/ReleaseNote9_9_1 -Chris. > On 13 Dec 2023, at 11:55, Chris Hegarty > wrote: > > Hi, > > Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.9.1 > > The artifacts can be downloaded from: &

[VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.1 RC1

Hi, Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.9.1 The artifacts can be downloaded from: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.1-RC1-rev-eee32cbf5e072a8c9d459c349549094230038308 You can run the smoke tester directly with this command: python3 -u

Re: The need for a Lucene 9.9.1 release

obably just run concurrently with > voting (optimistic concurrency!)? > > Mike McCandless > > http://blog.mikemccandless.com > > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 9:18 AM Chris Hegarty > wrote: > Hi Mike, > > > On 12 Dec 2023, at 12:56, Michael McCandless > &g

Re: The need for a Lucene 9.9.1 release

Hi Mike, > On 12 Dec 2023, at 12:56, Michael McCandless > wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > I think we should also regenerate the FSTs for 9.9.1? Seems reasonable. > https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12924 I added my comments and review on the PR. -Chris. > Thanks, > > Mike

Re: The need for a Lucene 9.9.1 release

Just a quick update on this... > On 9 Dec 2023, at 09:09, Chris Hegarty wrote: > > Hi, > > We’ve encounter two very serious issues with the recent Lucene 9.9.0 release, > both of which (even if taken by themselves) would warrant a 9.9.1. The issues > are: > > 1

Re: The need for a Lucene 9.9.1 release

> On 9 Dec 2023, at 09:09, Chris Hegarty wrote: > > Hi, > > We’ve encounter two very serious issues with the recent Lucene 9.9.0 release, > both of which (even if taken by themselves) would warrant a 9.9.1. The issues > are: > > 1. https://github.com/apache/lucen

Re: The need for a Lucene 9.9.1 release

FYI - I added the next bugfix version 9.9.1 to `branch_9_9`, in preparation for the upcoming bug fix release. https://github.com/apache/lucene/commit/1617c0b3a5624adba6e7b380dfeb7fb89b8a2feb -Chris. > On 9 Dec 2023, at 09:09, Chris Hegarty wrote: > > Hi, > > We’ve encounter t

Re: The need for a Lucene 9.9.1 release

Oh, and I’m happy to be Release Manager for 9.9.1 (given my recent experience on 9.9.0) -Chris. > On 9 Dec 2023, at 09:09, Chris Hegarty wrote: > > Hi, > > We’ve encounter two very serious issues with the recent Lucene 9.9.0 release, > both of which (even if taken by

The need for a Lucene 9.9.1 release

Hi, We’ve encounter two very serious issues with the recent Lucene 9.9.0 release, both of which (even if taken by themselves) would warrant a 9.9.1. The issues are: 1. https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/12895 - Corruption read on term dictionaries in Lucene 9.9 2.

SIGSEGV with Lucene 9.9.0

Hi, I want to raise awareness of a JVM crash that has been tickled by the Lucene 9.9.0 release. I don’t have all the answers (yet), but I just want to ensure that folk here are aware. Details in this Elasticsearch issue [1] # A fatal error has been detected by the Java Runtime Environment: # #

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Lucene 9.9.0 released

The Lucene PMC is pleased to announce the release of Apache Lucene 9.9.0. Apache Lucene is a high-performance, full-featured search engine library written entirely in Java. It is a technology suitable for nearly any application that requires structured search, full-text search, faceting,

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC2

Hi, It's been >72h since the vote was initiated and the result is: +1 12 (9 binding) 0 0 -1 0 This vote has PASSED -Chris.

Re: [JENKINS] Lucene-9.x-Linux (64bit/hotspot/jdk-11.0.21) - Build # 14204 - Unstable!

. It only works with stable merge policies. > > Uwe > > > Am 2. Dezember 2023 09:34:46 MEZ schrieb Chris Hegarty > : > >> Hi, >> >> I noticed this failure locally, and opened a PR for it yesterday. It is a >> test issues, and indeed related to the recen

Re: [JENKINS] Lucene-9.x-Linux (64bit/hotspot/jdk-11.0.21) - Build # 14204 - Unstable!

Hi, I noticed this failure locally, and opened a PR for it yesterday. It is a test issues, and indeed related to the recent merge policy test randomization change. -Chris On Saturday, December 2, 2023, Patrick Zhai wrote: > Seems it's because this MockRandomMergePolicy change >

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

023 at 10:38 AM Michael McCandless >> mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com>> wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 9:56 AM Chris Hegarty >>> wrote: >>> >>>> P.S. I’m less sure about this, but the RC 2 starts a 72hr voting time >&

[VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC2

Please vote for release candidate 2 for Lucene 9.9.0 The artifacts can be downloaded from: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.0-RC2-rev-06070c0dceba07f0d33104192d9ac98ca16fc500 You can run the smoke tester directly with this command: python3 -u

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

e. -Chris. P.S. I’m less sure about this, but the RC 2 starts a 72hr voting time again? (Just so I know what TTL to put on that) > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 6:01 AM Luca Cavanna wrote: >> SUCCESS! [0:33:10.432870] >> >> +1 >> >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 2:59 PM

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

1. Thank you Chris! >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:45 PM Nhat Nguyen >> wrote: >>> SUCCESS! [1:11:30.037919] >>> >>> +1. Thanks, Chris! >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:53 AM Chris Hegarty >>> wrote: >>>> Hi

[VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

Hi, Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.9.0 The artifacts can be downloaded from: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.0-RC1-rev-92a5e5b02e0e083126c4122f2b7a02426c21a037 You can run the smoke tester directly with this command: python3 -u

New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.9.0

Hi Lucene Devs, Branch branch_9_9 has been cut and versions updated to 9.10 on stable branch. Please observe the normal rules: * No new features may be committed to the branch. * Documentation patches, build patches and serious bug fixes may be committed to the branch. However, you should

Re: Lucene 9.9.0 Release

eedy work here. I’ll start the branch cut process soon, and post an update when it is done. -Chris. > Feng > > On 2023/11/28 08:32:59 Chris Hegarty wrote: >> Hi Guo, >> >> Thanks for the update. >> >> Let’s push the 9.9.0 branch cut until tomorrow (rather

Re: Lucene 9.9.0 Release

and #12631 (the PR introduced > regression) and push them to the next version. > > On 2023/11/21 09:51:43 Chris Hegarty wrote: >> Hi, >> >> It's been a while since the 9.8.0 release and we’ve accumulated quite a few >> changes. I’d like to propose that we release

Re: Lucene 9.9.0 Release

apache/lucene/pull/12810 > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 11:16 AM Michael McCandless > mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com>> wrote: >> +1 >> >> Thank you for volunteering as RC Chris! >> >> Mike McCandless >> >> http://blog.mikemccandless.com <h

Lucene 9.9.0 Release

Hi, It's been a while since the 9.8.0 release and we’ve accumulated quite a few changes. I’d like to propose that we release 9.9.0. If there's no objections, I volunteer to be the release manager and will cut the feature branch a week from now, 12:00 28th Nov UTC. -Chris.

Re: Welcome Patrick Zhai to the Lucene PMC

Congratulations! Welcome Patrick. -Chris > On 13 Nov 2023, at 10:25, Luca Cavanna wrote: > > Congrats Patrick! > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 7:14 PM Patrick Zhai > wrote: >> Thank you everyone! >> >> On Sun, Nov 12, 2023, 09:34 Dawid Weiss >

Re: Bump minimum Java version requirement to 21

Hi Robert, > On 6 Nov 2023, at 12:24, Robert Muir wrote: > >> … >> The only concern I have with no.2 is that it could be considered an >> “aggressive” adoption of Java 21 - adoption sooner than the ecosystem can >> handle, e.g. are environments in which Lucene is deployed, and their >>

Re: Bump minimum Java version requirement to 21

classes in a separate gradle sourceSet. But we can copy the separate > sourceSet output for 21 directly into the main JAR part (but we can also let > it live in versions/21. > > This should not stop us from moving to 21, the details with how to build the > JRA/MR-JAR can be solved separa

Re: Bump minimum Java version requirement to 21

, but I agree we’ll likely need updates for the vector stuff in 22+. -Chris. > Uwe > > Am 03.11.2023 um 13:20 schrieb Chris Hegarty: >> Hi, >> >> I would like to start the discussion and gather feedback on bumping the >> minimum Java version requirement to

Bump minimum Java version requirement to 21

Hi, I would like to start the discussion and gather feedback on bumping the minimum Java version requirement to 21. I have no particular timeline in mind, but these kinda bumps often require dependency updates [*], small code refactorings, etc, and can take some time to plan and execute. It's

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.8.0 RC1

Hi, >> 2>at Log4jHotPatch.asmVersion(Log4jHotPatch.java:71) This coming from Amazon’s Log4Shell hot patch [1], which I believe was deployed by default on many (all?) JVM’s running on Amazon instances. Well… that was almost 2yrs ago, not sure why it’s still showing up in some places now -

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.8.0 RC1

Hi, The Elasticsearch CI is green with the Lucene RC1 build [1]. +1 to release. -Chris. [1] https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/pull/99800 > On 22 Sep 2023, at 15:43, Adrien Grand wrote: > > +1 SUCCESS! [0:54:58.932481] > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 4:18 PM Uwe Schindler wrote: >> >>

Re: Welcome Chris Hegarty to the Lucene PMC

Thank you all for the warm welcome. Happy to be included in this very talented group of individuals :-) -Chris. > On 21 Jun 2023, at 09:31, Uwe Schindler wrote: > > Welcome Chris.  > > Uwe > > > Am 19. Juni 2023 11:52:50 MESZ schrieb Adrien Grand : >> I'm

Re: New branch and feature freeze for Lucene 9.7.0

Hi Uwe, > On 16 Jun 2023, at 13:52, Uwe Schindler wrote: > > Hi, > > I also downloaded latest JDK 21 EA build (21-b27) and regenerated the apijar > files: No changes. So all fine! I did this because there were some late > changes to javadocs and API definition, but it all looks fine. Also

Re: Lucene 9.7 release

Hi, > On 9 Jun 2023, at 17:19, Uwe Schindler wrote: > > Hi, > > if possible I would like to get the Java 21 changes (MemorySegments and > Vector) into the release. I'd like to ask Chris who has better knowledge how > to proceed. If he suggests to wait maybe a week or 2, I'd suggest to wait

Re: Welcome Chris Hegarty as Lucene committer

in a small way. -Chris. > On 1 Jun 2022, at 08:04, Adrien Grand wrote: > > I'm pleased to announce that Chris Hegarty has accepted the PMC's > invitation to become a committer. > > Chris, the tradition is that new committers introduce themselves with a > brief b

Re: [Heads up] Test framework package rename

Hi David, > On 20 Dec 2021, at 17:12, Dawid Weiss wrote: > > [snip] > >> I think that the approach is reasonable (to inject ’test’ into the package >> name between the reverse DNS prefix and the specific logical technology >> suffix). > > It's actually '.tests'... Robert (Muir) suggested

Re: [Heads up] Test framework package rename

Hi David, [ not a review ] > On 20 Dec 2021, at 14:54, Dawid Weiss wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > I've completed the task of getting the test framework to not share any > packages with Lucene core - this is here: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10301 >

Re: HEADS UP: Java 9 Module System (JMS) module names for Lucene artifacts

Hi Uwe, > On 30 Nov 2021, at 13:01, Uwe Schindler wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > yes they are not declared “stable” for 9.0 as those are just “automatic > module names” assigned through manifest based on the gradle module name only. > But I would say they are still more “stable” than anything we

Re: HEADS UP: Java 9 Module System (JMS) module names for Lucene artifacts

Hi Uwe, Thank you very much for noticing and fixing this. I’m relatively new here and certainly don’t get a vote or anything, but it is a big +1 from me for this change. I'm actively investigaing the modularization of the Elasticsearch platform and I noticed, when prototyping our module

Re: Accessibility of CollectedSearchGroup's state

Hi Adrien, Jim, First, thank you for your time and insightful comments. They are very much appreciated, and will no doubt lead to the best solution. I will reimplement the elasticsearch collector as suggested, and then circle back here with a proposal for the reduction in accessibility most

Accessibility of CollectedSearchGroup's state

In an effort to prepare Elasticsearch for modularization, we are investigating and eliminating split packages. The situation has improved through recent refactoring in Lucene 9.0 [1], but a number of split packages still remain. This message identifies one such so that it can be discussed in

Re: Accessibility of SegmentInfo::setDiagnostics

Hi Adrien, Thanks for your reply. A further thought... the use-case here is really for custom subclasses to “add additional” diagnostics, rather than “replace”. How about we expose just that functionality in SegmentInfo, e.g. through a new method similar to: /** * Adds the given {@code

Accessibility of SegmentInfo::setDiagnostics

In an effort to prepare Elasticsearch for modularization, we are investigating and eliminating split packages. The situation has improved through recent refactoring in Lucene 9.0 [1], but a number of split packages still remain. This message identifies one such so that it can be discussed in

Re: Accessibility of MergeThread.rateLimiter

Hi Adrien, > On 22 Sep 2021, at 12:56, Adrien Grand wrote: > > You interpreted my suggestion correctly. Great. Thanks for the confirmation. I filed the following issue to track this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10118 >

Re: Accessibility of MergeThread.rateLimiter

Hi Adrien, Great suggestion. If I understand correctly, then what you are suggesting is something along the lines of ( subject to exact message details, which we can trash out in a PR ): diff --git a/lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/ConcurrentMergeScheduler.java

Accessibility of MergeThread.rateLimiter

In an effort to prepare Elasticsearch for modularization, we are investigating and eliminating split packages. The situation has improved through recent refactoring in Lucene 9.0, but a number of split packages still remain. This message identifies one such, so that it can be discussed in

Re: Accessibility of QueryParserBase::handleBareFuzzy

Thanks Alan, great suggestion. I filed the following issue to track this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10115 -Chris. > On 20 Sep 2021, at 16:14, Alan Woodward wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > The difference between the elasticsearch query parser and the built-in lucene > one

Accessibility of QueryParserBase::handleBareFuzzy

Hi, In an effort to prepare Elasticsearch for modularization, we are investigating and eliminating split packages. The situation has improved through recent refactoring in Lucene 9.0 [1], but a number of split packages still remain. This message identifies one such so that it can be discussed in