Looks like this vote passes. Not feeling well today and have plans for the
weekend, but I'll start the publishing process as soon as I can.
- Mark
On Mar 26, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> http://people.apache.org/~markrmiller/lucene_solr_4_2_1r1460810_2/
>
> Thanks for voting!
>
> S
+1
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> http://people.apache.org/~markrmiller/lucene_solr_4_2_1r1460810_2/
>
> Thanks for voting!
>
> Smoke tester passes for me,
>
> +1.
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> ---
Thank you Simon and Mark for making clear who should/can vote, I won't
hesitate to vote anymore.
--
Adrien
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
We consider all votes, especially any committers.
We need 3 pmc votes to get it out the door as a technical thing, but I think
all committers should vote that can.
Anyway, from my perspective as RM for this release, you have enough merit at
this point that your vote means as much to me as anyon
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Adrien Grand wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>> Is that a +1 ? :)
>
> That's a good question. I didn't want to +1 in order to make the
> counting easier since I have no binding vote (not being in Lucene
> PMC). Or does Lucene allow an
+1 The smokeReleaseTest again ran successfully.
On 27 March 2013 16:09, Adrien Grand wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Mark Miller
> wrote:
> > Is that a +1 ? :)
>
> That's a good question. I didn't want to +1 in order to make the
> counting easier since I have no binding vote (not bein
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Is that a +1 ? :)
That's a good question. I didn't want to +1 in order to make the
counting easier since I have no binding vote (not being in Lucene
PMC). Or does Lucene allow anyone contributing to the project to vote
for releases?
--
Adrien
+1
Tommaso
2013/3/26 Mark Miller
> Is that a +1 ? :)
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Adrien Grand wrote:
> > smokeTestRelease ran successfully on my machine.
> >
> > --
> > Adrien
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: de
Is that a +1 ? :)
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Adrien Grand wrote:
> smokeTestRelease ran successfully on my machine.
>
> --
> Adrien
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands
smokeTestRelease ran successfully on my machine.
--
Adrien
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
moved ES to the new RC + run smoke tester
+1 - thanks mark
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Michael McCandless
wrote:
> +1
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>> http://people.apache.org/~markrmiller/lucene_solr_4_2_1r14
+1
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> http://people.apache.org/~markrmiller/lucene_solr_4_2_1r1460810_2/
>
> Thanks for voting!
>
> Smoke tester passes for me,
>
> +1.
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> -
+1
On Mar 26, 2013, at 9:25, Mark Miller wrote:
> http://people.apache.org/~markrmiller/lucene_solr_4_2_1r1460810_2/
>
> Thanks for voting!
>
> Smoke tester passes for me,
>
> +1.
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-
: http://people.apache.org/~markrmiller/lucene_solr_4_2_1r1460810_2/
+1 VOTE for the files with the following sha1 checksums to be released as
Lucene/Solr 4.2.1...
d5694d06dd2035949c7487f83772afc89afd3372 *lucene-4.2.1-src.tgz
ae9c8e3d0508aa1445acb6dd048bf7d6c706e882 *lucene-4.2.1.tgz
+1
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> http://people.apache.org/~markrmiller/lucene_solr_4_2_1r1460810_2/
>
> Thanks for voting!
>
> Smoke tester passes for me,
>
> +1.
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-
And now with the correct URL, smoking SUCCESS!
+1 to release RC2
Steve
On Mar 26, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Steve Rowe wrote:
> Crap, you're right, I did use the old URL. Sorry for the noise. - Steve
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
>> Hmm…I think you used the wrong URL perhap
Crap, you're right, I did use the old URL. Sorry for the noise. - Steve
On Mar 26, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Hmm…I think you used the wrong URL perhaps? That's yesterdays date and I
> re-spun this morning.
>
>> 4.2.1 1460908 - mark - 2013-03-25 21:05:08
>
>
> Also, when I looke
Hmm…I think you used the wrong URL perhaps? That's yesterdays date and I
re-spun this morning.
> 4.2.1 1460908 - mark - 2013-03-25 21:05:08
Also, when I looked at MANIFEST.MF, I see:
Manifest-Version: 1.0
Ant-Version: Apache Ant 1.8.2
Created-By: 1.6.0_27-b27 (Sun Microsystems Inc.)
Extensi
Must have missed an svn update before I ran it in the 4x branch (re-running to
be sure).
- Mark
On Mar 26, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Steve Rowe wrote:
> Here's MANIFEST.MF contents:
>
> -
> Manifest-Version: 1.0
> Ant-Version: Apache Ant 1.8.2
> Created-By: 1.7.0_15-b20 (Oracle Corporation)
> Ext
On Mar 26, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
>
> We did not backport the smoketester changes to 4.2 branch, so smoketester
> will still pass when wrong java version would have been used.
>
> Uwe
I ran the smoketester script from both 4.2 branch and 4.x branch (with Mike's
new java vers
Here's MANIFEST.MF contents:
-
Manifest-Version: 1.0
Ant-Version: Apache Ant 1.8.2
Created-By: 1.7.0_15-b20 (Oracle Corporation)
Extension-Name: org.apache.lucene
Specification-Title: Lucene Search Engine: analyzers-common
Specification-Version: 4.2.1
Specification-Vendor: The Apache Software
Smoke tester (from branch_4x r1461125) says:
RuntimeError: JAR file
"/Users/sarowe/temp/smokeTestTmpDir/unpack/lucene-4.2.1/analysis/common/lucene-analyzers-common-4.2.1.jar"
is missing "Created-By: 1.6" inside its META-INF/MANIFES.MF
On Mar 26, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> http://p
rg
> Subject: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.2.1 RC2
>
> http://people.apache.org/~markrmiller/lucene_solr_4_2_1r1460810_2/
>
> Thanks for voting!
>
> Smoke tester passes for me,
>
> +1.
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> --
http://people.apache.org/~markrmiller/lucene_solr_4_2_1r1460810_2/
Thanks for voting!
Smoke tester passes for me,
+1.
--
- Mark
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Thanks Mike,
>
> I checked the previous releases: 4.0 and 4.1 was correct (I know this as I
> checked them). I also downloaded the 4.2.0 tgz file and it has Java 7 style
> javadocs with AutoCloseable and was built with 1.7. At the time of r
@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.2.1
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Michael McCandless
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Uwe Schindler
> wrote:
> >> I just wanted to mention: Smoke-Tester does not detect the problems, as
> i
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Michael McCandless
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
>> I just wanted to mention: Smoke-Tester does not detect the problems, as it
>> does not check links to the oracle homepage.
>>
>> Maybe we should add a check to smoketester that c
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> I just wanted to mention: Smoke-Tester does not detect the problems, as it
> does not check links to the oracle homepage.
>
> Maybe we should add a check to smoketester that checks all
> META-INF/manifest.mf files that they contain "1.6" (o
.@thetaphi.de]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:21 AM
>> To: dev@lucene.apache.org; markrmil...@gmail.com
>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.2.1
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the package was created with Java 1.7 not Java 1.6. This is risky, especially
>> after a disc
.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:21 AM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org; markrmil...@gmail.com
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Lucene/Sol
]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 4:24 AM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.2.1
>
> http://people.apache.org/~markrmiller/lucene_solr_4_2_1r1460810/
>
> Thanks for voting!
>
> Smoke tes
+1 The smokeTestRelease script ran successful
On 26 March 2013 08:53, Simon Willnauer wrote:
> Upgrade ES to 4.2.1 - all tests pass
>
> +1
>
> thanks mark for rolling this release!
>
> simon
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Mark Miller
> wrote:
> > http://people.apache.org/~markrmiller/luce
Upgrade ES to 4.2.1 - all tests pass
+1
thanks mark for rolling this release!
simon
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> http://people.apache.org/~markrmiller/lucene_solr_4_2_1r1460810/
>
> Thanks for voting!
>
> Smoke tester passes for me,
>
> +1.
>
> --
> - Mark
>
>
http://people.apache.org/~markrmiller/lucene_solr_4_2_1r1460810/
Thanks for voting!
Smoke tester passes for me,
+1.
--
- Mark
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h.
So I hope to put the artifacts up tonight for the first rc. Sorry for the
delay, wanted to let some previous fixes bake just a little.
- Mark
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-
I'll probably hold off on making an rc till the weekend given some things that
have popped up. There is room to get stuff in.
- Mark
On Mar 19, 2013, at 3:04 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Last call.
>
> - Mark Miller
-
To unsubs
I'm setting up 4.2 branch Jobs on ASF Jenkins now. - Steve
On Mar 19, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> I'm looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4589
> which seems to be a pretty serious performance bug.
>
> -Yonik
> http://lucidworks.com
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3
I'm looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4589
which seems to be a pretty serious performance bug.
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Last call.
>
> - Mark Miller
---
Last call.
- Mark Miller
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
There are just a lot of bug fixes, not really anything particularly nasty. I
think we will probably do a 4.3 soon as well, but we have not invested time in
a point release in a while and I think it causes fewer upgrades that will fix
bugs. I think people are less likely to upgrade to 4.3 than 4.
Mark, thanks for the heads up. As I don't want to go through to upgrade
cycle in such short period, I will skip 4.2.0 and wait for 4.2.1.
I am curious as to why 4.2.1 so soon. Is there some nasty bug(s) in 4.2.0?
If that's the case I think I would like to know.
Bill
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 8
Done, also added 4.2.1 sections in CHANGES.txt files on trunk and branch_4x.
I'll backport my issues now:
* SOLR-4537: Clean up schema information REST API.
* SOLR-4567: copyField source glob matching explicit field(s) stopped working
in Solr 4.2.
Steve
On Mar 17, 2013, at 7:51 PM, Steve Rowe
On Mar 17, 2013, at 3:17 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> I think the branch should already be setup for 4.2.1, maybe you only need to
> raise version numbers.
I'll do this.
Steve
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apa
March 17, 2013 6:50 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Lucene/Solr 4.2.1
>
> Just a heads up, but I'm likely to bite the bullet on a 4.2.1 soon. I'm not
> 100%
> sure, but I think so. If so, I'd try and roll it this week.
>
> My current plan would be
Just a heads up, but I'm likely to bite the bullet on a 4.2.1 soon. I'm not
100% sure, but I think so. If so, I'd try and roll it this week.
My current plan would be to put in every bug fix we have so far in Lucene and
Solr. Optimizations are fair game I think, though I'll be looking at bugs
m
45 matches
Mail list logo
