My attempt to spin RC2 failed at one of the LTR tests,
https://gist.github.com/chatman/567afa09cc3e233d151f8e8b0f6b63e7.
This is a rare failure, so wondering if there's a bug somewhere (either in
LTR or schema loading). Ping Christine, Noble, FYI.
I'm trying another run, I have only an hour
Please take over, I'll be out for a week now. Thanks
On Sat, 23 Jan, 2021, 9:47 am Noble Paul, wrote:
> I've pushed the changes.
>
> @Ishan Chattopadhyaya if you are unavailable just ping me. I'll put up RC2
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 2:48 PM Noble Paul wrote:
> >
> > please hold on there is
please hold on there is a concurrency issue, I'm fixing it
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 12:54 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
wrote:
>
> My attempt to spin RC2 failed at one of the LTR tests,
> https://gist.github.com/chatman/567afa09cc3e233d151f8e8b0f6b63e7.
> This is a rare failure, so wondering if
I've pushed the changes.
@Ishan Chattopadhyaya if you are unavailable just ping me. I'll put up RC2
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 2:48 PM Noble Paul wrote:
>
> please hold on there is a concurrency issue, I'm fixing it
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 12:54 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> wrote:
> >
> > My
Hello. If it's not too late for RC2 and if someone could review and approve
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/2210 then
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15073 bug fix could be a candidate
for inclusion in RC2. What do you think? Thank you.
From: dev@lucene.apache.org At:
Hello Ishan. Is there still time for me to merge and backport
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/2196 for the fix this London morning
for inclusion in RC2? The PR is essentially reviewed but not yet approved and
with other things also going on I'd held off on it then so far. What do you
Hi Christine,
I've already built the artifacts for rc2. But I'm fairly busy at the moment
to smoke test and told the artifact's right now.
I took a look at the pr and I approve it, thanks for fixing it (it was my
bad). Please merge it to the release branch in case it makes it to rc3.
Regards,
and *upload (not told) the artifacts.
On Fri, 22 Jan, 2021, 3:57 pm Ishan Chattopadhyaya, <
ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Christine,
> I've already built the artifacts for rc2. But I'm fairly busy at the
> moment to smoke test and told the artifact's right now.
>
> I took a look at the
Thanks! SOLR-15073 commits are now complete.
From: dev@lucene.apache.org At: 01/22/21 10:28:58To: Christine Poerschke
(BLOOMBERG/ LONDON ) , dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 8.8.0 RC1
and *upload (not told) the artifacts.
On Fri, 22 Jan, 2021, 3:57 pm Ishan
There is a lot in here ;-).
With the caveat that I don’t have recent experience that many of you do with
massive solr clusters, I think that we need to commit to fewer, not more, ways
of maintaining the supporting resources that these clusters need.. I’d like
to see ways of managing our
I agree it would make long-term sense to consolidate the backend
implementation. I think leaving the "classic" user-facing facet API (with
JSON Facet module as a backend) would be a good idea. Either way, I think a
first step would be checking for parity between existing backend
implementations --
close to finish testing but i need help finding this testcase
RamUsageTester
any ideas?
Thanks John!
martin
From: Martin Gainty
Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 6:28 AM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: additional term meta data
how to access first and
I think it's already an optional feature; if you construct the regexp with
explicit syntax flags you can get an instance that won't consider '@'
special. Haven't actually had a need to do that so I'm assuming it works as
documented.
/** Syntax flag, enables anystring (@). */
public static final
No worries, thanks for the review input!
The SOLR-15071 commits are now complete.
From: dev@lucene.apache.org At: 01/22/21 13:33:19To: Christine Poerschke
(BLOOMBERG/ LONDON ) , dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: 8.8 Release
Sorry, I should have explicitly approved that PR; you had addressed
Sorry, I should have explicitly approved that PR; you had addressed my
concerns and I forgot about it, thinking it was in 8.8.
~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:29 AM Christine Poerschke (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) <
Able to reproduce locally. Looking into. Likely related to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15073 which changed
SystemInfoHandler* earlier today.
From: dev@lucene.apache.org At: 01/22/21 16:36:40To: bui...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [JENKINS] Lucene » Lucene-Solr-Tests-8.x - Build #
Personally I'd love to see us stop maintaining the duplicated code of
the underlying implementations. I wouldn't mind losing the legacy
syntax as well - I'll take a clear, verbose API over a less-clear,
concise one any day. But I'm probably a minority there.
Either way I agree with Michael when
pretty sure this is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14067
: Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 20:20:43 + (UTC)
: From: Apache Jenkins Server
: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
: To: bui...@lucene.apache.org
: Subject: [JENKINS] Lucene » Lucene-Solr-Check-master - Build # 1444 - Still
:
Thanks for your input Hoss and Martijn.
So I've taken a look at the Elastic docker images [1], and they are
structured much like official images, except for the use of multi-stage
builds. They have no ARGs, and the docker context is merely the directory
in which the Dockerfile sits. With this in
Thanks Anton! Providing a stack trace is great; we can afford the
black pixels I think ;)
I found some bugs in a separate effort which might be related,
although I saw a different exception so I'm not sure. I'll post a
patch soon, and if you are able to re-test and see if you can
reproduce, that
: So I've taken a look at the Elastic docker images [1], and they are
: structured much like official images, except for the use of multi-stage
: builds. They have no ARGs, and the docker context is merely the directory
: in which the Dockerfile sits. With this in mind, and wanting to still take
21 matches
Mail list logo
