: >> So I don't think this is useful: dev-tools is for developers,
...
: So now its a broken build system if it DOESNT include a working
: ide-configurator? This is what I meant by slippery slope
We need to be clear on the scope of comments so as to reduce confusion...
the "build sys
On Mar 25, 2011, at 11:15 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>> No, as Hoss pointed out, it's broken now w/o the ide configurator!
>
> Right, but my original suggestion (include dev-tools in the solr
> release, because its the whole trunk) will
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> No, as Hoss pointed out, it's broken now w/o the ide configurator!
Right, but my original suggestion (include dev-tools in the solr
release, because its the whole trunk) will fix that.
Alternatively we could remove the mention of dev-too
On Mar 25, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>>>
>>> So I don't think this is useful: dev-tools is for developers,
>>
>
> So now its a broken build system if it DOESNT include a working
> ide-configurator? This is what I meant
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>
>> So I don't think this is useful: dev-tools is for developers,
>
So now its a broken build system if it DOESNT include a working
ide-configurator? This is what I meant by slippery slope
---
On Mar 25, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
>>
>
> This is becoming a slippery slope fast... Uwe's perspective is
> starting to become much more attractive.
And what is that? I've yet to see it written down.
On Mar 25, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>> I do think we need standalone artifacts. So, I suppose if we do that, then
>> we can't just svn export, b/c we would need to separate dev tools per
>> project. But, then again, w
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> I do think we need standalone artifacts. So, I suppose if we do that, then
> we can't just svn export, b/c we would need to separate dev tools per
> project. But, then again, why can't we have:
> /dev-tools/
> /lucene/dev-tools
> /sol
On Mar 25, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>> Well, actually I think we should just make it completely unsupported. These
>> are our dev tools - don't count on them for crap. No reason to exclude them
>> from the src IMO.
>>
>
> Fo
On Mar 24, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> OK, let's vote. My vote: -1
Care to say why? Standard practice for a -1 is to say why you don't want it so
that it might be possible to address the concerns you have.
-
To
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Well, actually I think we should just make it completely unsupported. These
> are our dev tools - don't count on them for crap. No reason to exclude them
> from the src IMO.
>
For the solr release, I think I could be ok with that (my concer
On Mar 25, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> On Mar 25, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>> Mine is +1 as long as we mark it as experimental.
>
> +1
>
Well, actually I think we should just make it completely unsupported. These are
our dev tools - don't count on them for cr
On Mar 25, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Mine is +1 as long as we mark it as experimental.
+1
- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com
Lucene/Solr User Conference
May 25-26, San Francisco
www.lucenerevolution.org
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: Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:09 PM
>> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [
@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:09 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.1
>
> So, my sense is here that we should fix these minor documentation issues
> and decide on dev-tools and spin a new RC and get this sucker out the
doo
So, my sense is here that we should fix these minor documentation issues and
decide on dev-tools and spin a new RC and get this sucker out the door. I
think I have some time tomorrow, I can generate the artifacts.
Shall we vote on inclusion of dev-tools?
-Grant
On Mar 23, 2011, at 6:14 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
> : Please vote to release the artifacts at
> : http://people.apache.org/~yonik/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.1RC2
>
> -0
>
> I can't in good conscience vote for these artifacts.
>
> For the most part, there only only a few minor hicups -- bu
>
> I don't think someone should have to deal with maven to get the lucene
> source release... I think lucene should have its own artifacts as in
> the past (the source code being the most important).
>
sorry, did not mean to muddy the water with maven discussion...
ignore my comment
when you say
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
>
> I don't want to suggest anything to slow down the release... but if
> the problems are with the source release, what about just doing a
> single source release for lucene+solr?
>
> We currently have:
>
> lucene-solr-3.1RC2/lucene/
> lucene
>
> : Please vote to release the artifacts at
> : http://people.apache.org/~yonik/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.1RC2
>
> -0
>
> I can't in good conscience vote for these artifacts.
>
I don't want to suggest anything to slow down the release... but if
the problems are with the source release, what abo
: Please vote to release the artifacts at
: http://people.apache.org/~yonik/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.1RC2
-0
I can't in good conscience vote for these artifacts.
For the most part, there only only a few minor hicups -- but the big
blocker (in my opinion) is that since RC1, dev-tools has been
+1
* Ran Solr example
* Perused entire structure of both binary and source distros
Noticed the minor issues others have reported, to echo Ryan, none seem like
blockers to me.
And also to echo Ryan's thanks huge thanks to everyone's hard work on the
3.1 Lucene/Solr release(s). This is
+1
* Walked through the solr example
* Tested a simple maven project, worked well
I don't think the minor issues listed so far are blockers
Thanks to everyone who worked on this!
ryan
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> Please vote to release the artifacts at
> http://peo
Overall, things look good to me.
As discussed on IRC, one minor nit:
1. In the source bundle, the Changes.html is missing and so index.html has dead
links. I know Changes.html is generated. We could just hook this into the svn
export target and then I think the docs would be whole.
I guess I
Don't know how important this is, but:
1) I've just tried following the instructions from example/README.txt,
under cygwin curl is not installed by default and post.sh assumes it
is always available, resulting command-not-found ugliness.
2) example/solr/conf/solrconfig.xml states that:\
Not
gt; To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.1
>
> Please vote to release the artifacts at
> http://people.apache.org/~yonik/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.1RC2
> as Lucene 3.1 and Solr 3.1
>
> Thanks for everyone's help pulling all this together!
>
Please vote to release the artifacts at
http://people.apache.org/~yonik/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.1RC2
as Lucene 3.1 and Solr 3.1
Thanks for everyone's help pulling all this together!
-Yonik
http://www.lucenerevolution.org -- Lucene/Solr User Conference, May
25-26, San Francisco
---
27 matches
Mail list logo
