It's already on many mirrors. The announce will be soon.
On Apr 12, 2012, at 1:19 PM, Bill Bell wrote:
> When is it going out?
>
> Sent from my Mobile device
> 720-256-8076
>
> On Apr 11, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
>
>> Vote has passed. Thanks everyone.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012
When is it going out?
Sent from my Mobile device
720-256-8076
On Apr 11, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> Vote has passed. Thanks everyone.
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Yonik Seeley
> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> -Yonik
>> lucenerevolution.com - Lucene/Solr Open Source Search Conference
Vote has passed. Thanks everyone.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> +1
>
> -Yonik
> lucenerevolution.com - Lucene/Solr Open Source Search Conference.
> Boston May 7-10
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
>> Artifacts here: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc1
+1
-Yonik
lucenerevolution.com - Lucene/Solr Open Source Search Conference.
Boston May 7-10
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> Artifacts here: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc1
>
> I tested with smoketester, (including newly added checks), so here is my +1.
> Note: smoketester c
+1
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> Artifacts here: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc1
>
> I tested with smoketester, (including newly added checks), so here is my
> +1.
> Note: smoketester currently does not support windows (use a linux system)
>
> --
> lucidimagination.com
>
+1 - all of my typical tinkerings worked fine.
On Apr 6, 2012, at 13:27 , Robert Muir wrote:
> Artifacts here: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc1
>
> I tested with smoketester, (including newly added checks), so here is my +1.
> Note: smoketester currently does not support windows (use a linux sys
+1. New all source packages look good and the Ivy stuff worked. Sigs check
out.
On Apr 6, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> Artifacts here: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc1
>
> I tested with smoketester, (including newly added checks), so here is my +1.
> Note: smoketester currently does
+1
SHA1's of the Artifacts inspected...
fac4f6d6b2fb742c830f468b8d8847f8da440b8f *lucene-3.6.0-src.tgz
88b3380cdb4d9bd0b0a082be23831143bba1acce *lucene-3.6.0.tgz
7d38276a13a5e6a5ae49b7c5514f22b5f185082b *lucene-3.6.0.zip
d4b95804603d4dfb5aa70def78a6744a07e50964 *apache-solr-3.6.0-src.tgz
558cdf1
+1
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Christian Moen wrote:
> Robert,
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Solr's NOTICE.txt looks fine now (I've checked both the binary distributions
> and the source distribution). I've also done a quick Japanese test, which
>
Robert,
Thanks a lot.
Solr's NOTICE.txt looks fine now (I've checked both the binary distributions
and the source distribution). I've also done a quick Japanese test, which also
looks good.
+1
Christian Moen
http://www.atilika.com
On Apr 7, 2012, at 2:27 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
> Artifacts
+1
smokeTestRelease.py, including newly added checks, passes for me on Windows 7 +
Cygwin (see LUCENE-3963).
-Original Message-
From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 1:27 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 3.6 (take two
+1. I ran the smokeTestRelease script successfully and everything looks
fine to me.
Martijn
On 7 April 2012 12:31, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
> +1 (tested on 2 different machines, Mac OSX 10.6/10.7)
> Tommaso
>
>
> 2012/4/6 Robert Muir
>
>> Artifacts here: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc1
>>
>> I t
+1 (tested on 2 different machines, Mac OSX 10.6/10.7)
Tommaso
2012/4/6 Robert Muir
> Artifacts here: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc1
>
> I tested with smoketester, (including newly added checks), so here is my
> +1.
> Note: smoketester currently does not support windows (use a linux system)
>
>
t; From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 7:27 PM
>>> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> Subject: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 3.6 (take two)
>>>
>>> Artifacts here: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc1
>>>
>>>
hetaphi.de
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 7:27 PM
>> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 3.6 (take two)
>>
>> Artifacts here:
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 3.6 (take two)
>
> Artifacts here: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc1
>
> I tested with smoketester, (including newly added checks), so here is my +1.
> Note: smoketester currently does not suppo
Artifacts here: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc1
I tested with smoketester, (including newly added checks), so here is my +1.
Note: smoketester currently does not support windows (use a linux system)
--
lucidimagination.com
-
To
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:
> Other changes to the build have been mentioned in CHANGES.txt. --wunder
>
Doesn't matter. As release manager I have to be extremely careful
about which changes go in and which don't.
Licensing/Legal stuff: respin with no questions.
Packa
Other changes to the build have been mentioned in CHANGES.txt. --wunder
On Apr 6, 2012, at 4:22 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
>> Then please remove the directory refactoring also from CHANGES.txt.
>>
>> This is still a blocker to me. It should no
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Christian Moen wrote:
> Hello again Robert,
>
> I've been doing some end-to-end testing on Kuromoji using the release
> candidate build and things look good to me.
>
> I've also done the testing described on SOLR-3282 earlier using a branch_3x
> build from last we
JAJA.
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 1:51 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: VOTE:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> Read 3 lines below the comment you replied to:
> My idea was to place all those text files (BUILD.txt, NOTICE.txt,...) into
> the SVN root (directly under trunk), remove them from Lucene/Solr/modules
> subfolders. Then simply
://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 1:42 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 3.6
>
> The problem is: duplication of documentation
ier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 1:37 PM
>> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: VOTE:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Martijn v Groningen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A few days ago Cody Young discovered a bug in Solr's distributed grouping
> (SOLR-3316). This bug also occurs in the 3x code.
> I attached a bug fix in the issue. I think it is an important bug fix. Can I
> commit the fix to bran
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 3.6
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > In the case that you have to fix this one and respin, could you please also
> > fix
> my CHANGES.txt complaint? The Ivy cha
I agree. I would have build only the javadocs with java 7, the rest with Java 5.
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 1:36 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 3.6
>
> On Fri, A
Hi,
A few days ago Cody Young discovered a bug in Solr's distributed grouping
(SOLR-3316). This bug also occurs in the 3x code.
I attached a bug fix in the issue. I think it is an important bug fix. Can
I commit the fix to branch3x or is it already too late?
Martijn
On 6 April 2012 13:35, Robert
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> In the case that you have to fix this one and respin, could you please also
> fix my CHANGES.txt complaint? The Ivy changes were such a huge piece of work,
> it should be mentioned with names in CHANGES.txt.
>
> One more thi
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> - Binary Javadocs still Geocities-like, it's no problem, but was it not
> planned to use Java 7? - It's of course fine!
>
Right: as i proposed originally on the list, this would be something
special I would do for the website *only*.
In my
gt; Subject: Re: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 3.6
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Christian Moen wrote:
>
> > In Lucene's NOTICE.txt we have a MeCab-IPADIC entry, but I can't find
> > a corresponding one in Solr's NOTICE.txt. Is this fine -- or should
> > this al
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Christian Moen wrote:
> In Lucene's NOTICE.txt we have a MeCab-IPADIC entry, but I can't find a
> corresponding one in Solr's NOTICE.txt. Is this fine -- or should this also
> be included as part of the "Lucene notice"? (To me it sounds appropriate to
> also i
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Then please remove the directory refactoring also from CHANGES.txt.
>
> This is still a blocker to me. It should not be *documented* in the
> CHNAGES.txt, I said it should be mentione:
>
Thats ok that we don't agree here. Fortunately, releas
12:43 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 3.6
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> >
> > - URGENT: Our change to IVY is nowhere noted in CHANGES.txt!!! This is a
> major problem, as this is a huge change and people used t
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
>
> - URGENT: Our change to IVY is nowhere noted in CHANGES.txt!!! This is a
> major problem, as this is a huge change and people used to building Lucene
> from source only looking into CHANGES.txt will fail to build without
> inspecting BUIL
m: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 6:45 AM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 3.6
>
> Please vote to release these artifacts: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc0
>
> I tested with dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py, ran rat
Hello again Robert,
I've been doing some end-to-end testing on Kuromoji using the release candidate
build and things look good to me.
I've also done the testing described on SOLR-3282 earlier using a branch_3x
build from last week. That also looks good.
I have one legal question:
In Lucene's
+1 for the release and I agree with Mark and Robert's points.
Tommaso
2012/4/6 Mark Miller
>
> On Apr 5, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
>
> > Its too late to discuss this issue for 3.6
>
> +1. We don't even know *what* will end up happening on trunk until 4 is
> released. Let's not get all
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012, Robert Muir wrote:
Please vote to release these artifacts: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc0
I tested with dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py, ran rat-sources
on both source releases, tested solr example, and reviewed packaging
contents (http://people.apache.org/~rmuir/36_
On Apr 5, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> Its too late to discuss this issue for 3.6
+1. We don't even know *what* will end up happening on trunk until 4 is
released. Let's not get all bent out of shape here when we might undeprecate it
and then just remove it later anyway. I believe th
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Smiley, David W. wrote:
> So it stays deprecated in 3.6 but not deprecated in 4.x? That doesn't sound
> right. Perhaps someone with specific comments about SOLR-2724 should add to
> this discussion.
>
Its too late to discuss this issue for 3.6 (only blocker chan
On Apr 5, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Smiley, David W. wrote:
>> There is a lingering discussion that comes to mind here:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2724
>> Title: Deprecate defaultSearchField and defaultOperator defined in
>> sche
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Smiley, David W. wrote:
> There is a lingering discussion that comes to mind here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2724
> Title: Deprecate defaultSearchField and defaultOperator defined in schema.xml
> Essentially I committed this to 3x and trunk, tru
There is a lingering discussion that comes to mind here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2724
Title: Deprecate defaultSearchField and defaultOperator defined in schema.xml
Essentially I committed this to 3x and trunk, trunk was subsequently reverted
due to something else entirely, b
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Chris Hostetter
wrote:
>
> : > Ignore "compile" ... "ant test" has the same result -- jars are built for
> : > some contribs, but not all -- which is kind of confusing when you run all
> : > the tests, and then go look for the demo but it's not there.
> : >
> :
> :
: > Ignore "compile" ... "ant test" has the same result -- jars are built for
: > some contribs, but not all -- which is kind of confusing when you run all
: > the tests, and then go look for the demo but it's not there.
: >
:
: ant test really shouldnt build any jars at all :)
that's my point -
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Chris Hostetter
wrote:
> Ignore "compile" ... "ant test" has the same result -- jars are built for
> some contribs, but not all -- which is kind of confusing when you run all
> the tests, and then go look for the demo but it's not there.
>
ant test really shouldnt
: > * "ant compile" in lucene src artifacts builds jars for some contribs not
: where did you get this target name 'compile' from? Is it listed in any
: of our documentation that this target should even work?
: its not a 'public target' listed in ant -p
Heh... sorry. pure muscle memory fro
: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 12:45 AM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 3.6
Please vote to release these artifacts: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc0
I tested with dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py, ran rat-sources on both
source releases
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Chris Hostetter
wrote:
>
> : Please vote to release these artifacts: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc0
>
> +1
>
> I encountered a few very nit-picky problems, mostly related to
> Solr->Lucene javadocs linkage -- but as long as we upload the lucene
> javadocs to where
: Please vote to release these artifacts: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc0
+1
I encountered a few very nit-picky problems, mostly related to
Solr->Lucene javadocs linkage -- but as long as we upload the lucene
javadocs to where the the solr releases are linking when the release is
official, th
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Dawid Weiss
wrote:
>> Great work getting everything ready and reworking the build system as well.
>
> +1. This is a major effort you've put into it; very much appreciated.
+1!
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
-
> Great work getting everything ready and reworking the build system as well.
+1. This is a major effort you've put into it; very much appreciated.
Dawid
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional
Robert,
Great work getting everything ready and reworking the build system as well.
I'll take Kuromoji for a spin and provide feedback tomorrow (Japanese time).
Christian
http://www.atilika.com
On Apr 5, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> Please vote to release these artifacts: http://s.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
> I was looking at the noggit and commons-csv sources that got included in
> Solr's sources in r1306796 as part of LUCENE-3930, and I can see @author tags
> in multiple .java files. A quick search reveals that there are other cases
> of thi
age-
> From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 12:45 AM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 3.6
>
> Please vote to release these artifacts: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc0
>
> I tested with dev-tools/scripts/smokeTe
if this is important enough to warrant a re-spin.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 12:45 AM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 3.6
Please vote to release these artifacts: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc0
- Checked Solr example and clustering part, looks good and works.
- Checked lucene-src, compiled from sources, worked.
Dawid
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
> Please vote to release these artifacts: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc0
>
> I tested with dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestR
Please vote to release these artifacts: http://s.apache.org/lusolr36rc0
I tested with dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py, ran rat-sources
on both source releases, tested solr example, and reviewed packaging
contents (http://people.apache.org/~rmuir/36_review/)
Here's my +1.
--
lucidimaginati
59 matches
Mail list logo
