Just throwing this one out there as we're making a bunch of breaking
changes in 2.0.
Is it worth upgrading Lucene and Solr versions within OODT?
My feeling is that they are both pretty old and whilst we're making life
hard for everyone we might as well go the whole hog and drag the
this one out there as we're making a bunch of breaking
>changes in 2.0.
>
>Is it worth upgrading Lucene and Solr versions within OODT?
>
>My feeling is that they are both pretty old and whilst we're making life
>hard for everyone we might as well go the whole hog and
.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/6/16, 8:51 AM, "Tom Barber" wrote:
>
> >Just throwing this one out there as we're making a bunch of breaking
> >changes in 2.0.
> >
> >Is it worth upgrading Lucene and Solr versions within OODT
t;
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/6/16, 8:51 AM, "Tom Barber" wrote:
>>
>> >Just throwing this one out there as we're making a bunch of breaking
>> >changes in 2.0.
>> >
>> >Is it wo
e scalability
> >> issues with Big Translate and DRAT using the old Lucene
> >> library. Let’s get it fixed in 2.x.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/6/16, 8:51 AM, "Tom
> >> Chris
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 7/6/16, 8:51 AM, "Tom Barber" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Just throwing this one out there as we're making a bunch of breaking
>
DOA. I’ve first hand seen the scalability
>> > >> issues with Big Translate and DRAT using the old Lucene
>> > >> library. Let’s get it fixed in 2.x.
>> > >>
>> > >> Cheers,
>> > >> Chris
>> > >>
>> &g
I was just telling Paul R. the other day we need to do
>>> > >> this, or we’re DOA. I’ve first hand seen the scalability
>>> > >> issues with Big Translate and DRAT using the old Lucene
>>> > >> library. Let’s get it fixed in 2.x.
>>> > >>
>>
g Paul R. the other day we need to do
>>>> > >> this, or we’re DOA. I’ve first hand seen the scalability
>>>> > >> issues with Big Translate and DRAT using the old Lucene
>>>> > >> library. Let’s get it fixed in 2.x.
>>>> > >
016 at 4:54 PM, Chris Mattmann <
> mattm...@apache.org>
> >>>> > > wrote:
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > >> Yes I was just telling Paul R. the other day we need to do
> >>>> > >> this, or we’re DOA. I’ve first hand
t;>>> we don't destroy the semi working avro upgrades ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Tom Barber >>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Coolio!
>>&
>>>>>>> Once avro_rpc is stable, I suggest we rename the branch 2.0-dev or
> >>>>>> similar
> >>>>>>> then branch the branch to uprade solr and lucene outside of that
> >> scope
> >>>>>> so
> >>>>>>> we don
gt; lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> ACK
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Tom Barber > >
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>
gt; >>>>
> >> >>>>> Just FYI:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Doesn't work yet, but I've pushed a lucene branch which is based
> on
> >> 2.0
> >> >>>>>
gt;> TestFileManagerCli.testLuceneQuery:350 » Runtime
> > >> >>>> org.apache.oodt.cas.cli.excep...
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Tests run: 221, Failures: 1, Errors: 2, Skipped: 0
> > >> >>>>
>
he rest next week.
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> Tom
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Tom Barber <
>> > tom.bar...@meteorite.bi>
>> > >> >
;> > well
> >> > >> >> On 9 Jul 2016 00:26, "Chris Mattmann"
> wrote:
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> awesome!!!
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Please backport to 1.x :)
> >> > >
; >On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
>> >> > >chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> Yeah we can back port the Lucene part to 1.x
>> >> > >>
>> >
18 matches
Mail list logo
