: And what's the command line to do the svn checkout? It's not apparent
: from the Lucene web site. I have the svn client installed.
the info is in the wiki, i've linked to it from the FAQ...
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-lucene/LuceneFAQ#head-abe69adac45ac2e9b5c04db87666a6757631
-Hoss
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-453?page=all ]
Yonik Seeley resolved LUCENE-453:
-
Fix Version: 1.9
Resolution: Fixed
Assign To: Yonik Seeley
Thanks for the patch Luc!
I've applied it to the current dev version (1.9).
> Usin
mkdir -p lucene/java/trunk
svn checkout http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/trunk
lucene/java/trunk
cd lucene/java/trunk; ant
The parser generator (JavaCC) is only needed if you change the grammar file.
-Yonik
Now hiring -- http://forms.cnet.com/slink?231706
On 11/9/05, Bill Janssen <[
> No, not officially. Checking out from Subversion and running "ant"
> is all that is needed to get the latest JAR though.
Somehow I doubt that. Isn't there some parser generator that has to
be installed?
And what's the command line to do the svn checkout? It's not apparent
from the Lucene w
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-392?page=all ]
Yonik Seeley resolved LUCENE-392:
-
Fix Version: 1.9
Resolution: Fixed
Assign To: Yonik Seeley (was: Lucene Developers)
instanceof is faster for me (faster than testing getClass
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-140?page=comments#action_12357180 ]
Otis Gospodnetic commented on LUCENE-140:
-
2 years later, I still haven't seen this error.
> docs out of order
> -
>
> Key: LUCENE-140
>
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-140?page=comments#action_12357178 ]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-140:
-
I've never seen this... can anyone reproduce with Lucene 1.9?
CCing this to Arvind's email...
> docs out of order
>
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-374?page=comments#action_12357177 ]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-374:
-
I cloned this bug to LUCENE-459 to capture the desire for warnings in certain
circumstances.
I don't think those concerns should hol
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-462?page=all ]
Yonik Seeley updated LUCENE-462:
Attachment: FieldSortedHitQueue_maxscore.patch
Proposed patch attached:
- insert(FieldDoc) keeps track of maxscore and calls super.insert(Object)
- the maximu
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-463?page=comments#action_12357145 ]
Hoss Man commented on LUCENE-463:
-
without providing any any explanation of how you are building the index, or how
exactly you are executing your searches, I'm not sure that t
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-395?page=all ]
Yonik Seeley updated LUCENE-395:
Attachment: BooleanQuery.patch
attaching new BooleanQuery.patch that fixes a toString() typo and syncs with
head.
> CoordConstrainedBooleanQuery + QueryParser
Sorting does not work correcly on "String Date"
---
Key: LUCENE-463
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-463
Project: Lucene - Java
Type: Bug
Environment: Java Windows XP, JRE 1.3.1
Reporter: Etienne
Pr
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-441?page=all ]
Yonik Seeley closed LUCENE-441:
---
Resolution: Fixed
Assign To: Yonik Seeley
> IntParser and FloatParser unused by FieldCacheImpl
> --
>
>
bad normalization in sorted search returning TopDocs
Key: LUCENE-462
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-462
Project: Lucene - Java
Type: Bug
Reporter: Yonik Seeley
Assigned to: Yonik Seeley
Daniel Naber wrote:
On Mittwoch 09 November 2005 15:25, Volodymyr Bychkoviak wrote:
In my application I can set appropriate value inside application but if
I want to test same query in Luke I get TooManyClausesException.
That should be fixed in Luke. For example, Luke could just emul
On Mittwoch 09 November 2005 15:25, Volodymyr Bychkoviak wrote:
> In my application I can set appropriate value inside application but if
> I want to test same query in Luke I get TooManyClausesException.
That should be fixed in Luke. For example, Luke could just emulate the old
behaviour by cal
> > If not, then our next release version should just be 2.0 and skip
> > 1.9, don't ya think?
As other said - we want 1.9 + 2.0 so we can clean up deprecated stuff.
> FWIW... One reason I haven't been persistent or hurried about the
> UTF-8-clean/speedup patches is because they aren't backwa
You are right, I misread the code last night.
Otis
--- Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's actually more than that...
> FieldCacheImpl simply ignored user supplied IntParser and FloatParser
> implementations.
>
> On 11/9/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > + 8. Minor
On Nov 9, 2005, at 6:19 AM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
If not, then our next release version should just be 2.0 and skip
1.9, don't ya think?
FWIW... One reason I haven't been persistent or hurried about the
UTF-8-clean/speedup patches is because they aren't backwards
compatible, and thus shoul
It's actually more than that...
FieldCacheImpl simply ignored user supplied IntParser and FloatParser
implementations.
On 11/9/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + 8. Minor change in FieldCacheImpl to make it use its own IntParser and
> +FloatParser inner classes.
> +(Yonik
I think the intention has been to be as backward compatible as
possible with 1.9, and that's why there should still be a 1.9 and 2.0
(removing all the deprecated stuff will break tons of things). Patch
releases should strive to be a 100% drop in replacement, but that's
not a realistic requirement
Recently I fount out that BooleanQuesry.maxClauseCount no longer ca be
set via system property.
from Changes.txt:
7. Several default values cannot be set via system properties anymore, as
this has been considered inappropriate for a library like Lucene.
In my application I can set appropriat
On 8 Nov 2005, at 21:47, Bill Janssen wrote:
Is the 1.9 jar file available somewhere as an alpha for download?
No, not officially. Checking out from Subversion and running "ant"
is all that is needed to get the latest JAR though.
Erik
I'd like to try my app with it.
Bill
Hi,
I
Expert level changes are understandable. But I'm more concerned
about folks wanting to simply drop in the 1.9 JAR into an existing
application without recompilation. Where do we break this? And is
there no way to get to binary level compatibility? If not, then our
next release version s
24 matches
Mail list logo
