2011/3/14 slaava :
> Hi,
> when could we expect "final" 3.1 version with maven-repository? We need some
> functionality included in 3.1 and I don't know if I have to wait or create
> own maven project from sources...
Hi,
I hope soon as well, in the meantime we've been testing with the
release cand
Hi,
when could we expect "final" 3.1 version with maven-repository? We need some
functionality included in 3.1 and I don't know if I have to wait or create
own maven project from sources...
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/VOTE-Lucene-and-Solr-3-1-release-candid
OK, things are looking good.
I fixed many of the issues that Hoss pointed out (well, the ones I
agreed with at least).
The only remaining 3.1 issue is
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2960
Hopefully that can be done quickly and then we can cut another release
candidate (I'll volunteer
I'm trying to fix the solr javadoc targets.
I just noticed that it looks like we have a double-copy of the solr
javadoc too - I'll
try and fix that while I'm in there.
Overall I think things are looking pretty good - if anyone wants to review/fix
things, please run "ant package" and check the resu
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Chris Hostetter
> wrote:
>> The number of "lucene" jars included in the release is also odd -- they
>> are embedded in the solr.war obviously, but not included anywhere else.
>> so people wanting to do somethi
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Chris Hostetter
wrote:
> The number of "lucene" jars included in the release is also odd -- they
> are embedded in the solr.war obviously, but not included anywhere else.
> so people wanting to do something like use apache-solr-core-3.1.0.jar to
> embed solr in the
On Mar 10, 2011, at 9:18 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> i'm just wondering if we really need both lucene-src and
> solr-src artifacts. particularly considering that solr-src is already a
> superset of lucene-src ... it just seems like one uber lucene-solr-src
> package of the "dev" tree would
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Chris Hostetter
wrote:
> The way it gets into the solr docs is via a property file generated by the
> build (see the init-forrest-entities, it's setup as a dependency for just
> about everything) that forrest then reads. the old release process docs
> were specifi
: - I'm definitely for separate source and binary releases - makes so
: much more sense post merge.
: solr's "src" is particularly great now... one can modify any part
: (lucene, modules, etc) and easily rebuild.
agreed .. i'm just wondering if we really need both lucene-src and
solr-src artif
: > glitch: it lists the Solr version as "3.0.0.2011.03.06.20.12.33" (which i
: > know means it wasn't regenerated with the forrest properties set by ant).
:
: This is wrong and misleading. As you see in this long and confusing
: string: 2011.03.06 was the date that I updated forrest, regenerated
Too much here to reply to all the points at once... but I'll take a
stab at some of them.
- "maven" directory in the binary release - that was a mistake/bug -
has been fixed in build.xml
- I'm definitely for separate source and binary releases - makes so
much more sense post merge.
solr's "src"
Thanks for the review hoss... the rest of this stuff should surely be
fixed (FYI won't be by me, I did my time)
I only had one comment.
> exist -- dist and docs. Looking at the tutorial, i noticed the first
> glitch: it lists the Solr version as "3.0.0.2011.03.06.20.12.33" (which i
> know means i
: Artifacts are located here: http://s.apache.org/solrcene31rc0
Finally got a chance to look at 3.1 rc0.
my comments are below -- they are in the order i encountered them ...
stream of conciousness. Note that this was my first real chance to look
at the new packaging work folks have been doi
Hi Grant,
On 3/9/2001 at 6:38 AM Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> > 2011/3/8 Steven A Rowe :
> >> Solr (and some Lucene modules) have several non-Mavenized dependencies.
>
> In the past, we have usually published these along with Solr, by changing
> the names to be something like solr-foo.1.5.jar (see t
dd at least a warning in the release
> notes.
>
> Regards,
> Sanne
>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Sanne Grinovero [mailto:sanne.grinov...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 6:44 AM
>>> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
&
;> -Original Message-
>> From: Sanne Grinovero [mailto:sanne.grinov...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 6:44 AM
>> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Lucene and Solr 3.1 release candidate
>>
>> Hello,
>> the lucene-solr
nov...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 6:44 AM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Lucene and Solr 3.1 release candidate
>
> Hello,
> the lucene-solr-grandparent pom [1] file mentions a jetty version
> "6.1.26-patched-JETTY-1340" which is no
aphi.de
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:43 PM
> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [VOTE] Lucene and Solr 3.1 release candidate
>
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Lucene and Solr 3.1 release candidate
>
> Hi,
>
> I found a serious issue in CheckIndex.java (lines 357++):
> If you run CheckIndex on an index updated or changed with 3.1 it print the
> following:
, 2011 7:33 AM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Lucene and Solr 3.1 release candidate
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have posted a release candidate for both Lucene 3.1 and Solr 3.1, both from
> revision 1078688 of
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_s
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
> I found another problem.
>
> Maybe something changed in the logic of FSDirectory.open(), but now when I
> run some tests over my code, I see that if MMapDirectory is chosen and an
> attempt to seek to an incorrect position is made, IllegalArgumen
n 3.0).
Uwe
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
<http://www.thetaphi.de/> http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
From: Shai Erera [mailto:ser...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:12 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Lucene a
+1. I downloaded them all, checked sigs, compiled, tested both Lucene and
Solr, ran the Solr demo.
I also just want to thank Robert for the work he did on the licenses, etc. We
need to make the stuff that goes into releases more testable and verifiable.
On Mar 7, 2011, at 1:32 AM, Robert Mu
I found another problem.
Maybe something changed in the logic of FSDirectory.open(), but now when I
run some tests over my code, I see that if MMapDirectory is chosen and an
attempt to seek to an incorrect position is made, IllegalArgumentException
is thrown, instead of IOE. This breaks my code wh
Hello,
the lucene-solr-grandparent pom [1] file mentions a jetty version
"6.1.26-patched-JETTY-1340" which is not available in the repositories
where I would expect it.
Do I need to enable some additional repository?
This seems related to SOLR-2381.
I think for people using Solr as their dependen
I found what seems to be a "glitch" in StopFilter's ctors -- the boolean
'enablePosInc' was removed from the ctors and users now have to use the
setter instead. However, the ctors do default to 'true' if the passed in
Version is onOrAfter(29).
All of FilteringTokenFilter sub-classes include the en
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Smiley, David W. wrote:
> So https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2405 didn't make it in
> yesterday (apparently it didn't)? :-( Darn... maybe I shouldn't have waited
> for a committer to agree with the issue. I would have had it in Saturday.
Oops, I tho
So https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2405 didn't make it in yesterday
(apparently it didn't)? :-( Darn... maybe I shouldn't have waited for a
committer to agree with the issue. I would have had it in Saturday.
~ David Smiley
On Mar 7, 2011, at 1:32 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
> Hi all,
>
So https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2405 didn't make it in
yesterday (apparently it didn't)? :-( Darn... maybe I shouldn't have waited
for a committer to agree with the issue. I would have had it in Saturday.
~ David Smiley
-
Author: https://www.packtpub.com/solr-1-4-enterprise-se
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> The Solr war (apache-solr-3.1.war) file isn't signed. Can probably do it by
> hand.
>
Actually that war file shouldn't even be there. The problem is solr
generates some 'intermediate' stuff in dist/ (used by maven tasks),
and it got accid
The Solr war (apache-solr-3.1.war) file isn't signed. Can probably do it by
hand.
On Mar 7, 2011, at 1:32 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have posted a release candidate for both Lucene 3.1 and Solr 3.1,
> both from revision 1078688 of
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branc
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> I'm fine w/ it being pushed (I was going to suggest it actually), but I guess
> I missed the mail saying it was yesterday and thought I still might have time
> to fix it. What thread was that on?
>
http://www.lucidimagination.com/searc
On Mar 7, 2011, at 8:02 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> How do we have a release candidate if we still have issues open? Or is this
>> just a test run?
>>
>
> Anything in JIRA can make it in 3.2 instead. I said already, that
> yesterday was
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> How do we have a release candidate if we still have issues open? Or is this
> just a test run?
>
Anything in JIRA can make it in 3.2 instead. I said already, that
yesterday was the time I had available to produce this RC build.
-
How do we have a release candidate if we still have issues open? Or is this
just a test run?
On Mar 7, 2011, at 1:32 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have posted a release candidate for both Lucene 3.1 and Solr 3.1,
> both from revision 1078688 of
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene
Hi all,
I have posted a release candidate for both Lucene 3.1 and Solr 3.1,
both from revision 1078688 of
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_3_1/
Thanks for all your help! Please test them and give your votes, the
tentative release date for both versions is Sunday, Mar
36 matches
Mail list logo
