t;
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:50:44 AM
Subject: JPackage was Re: [VOTE] 2.0 release this Friday?
I read the ReleaseTodo and saw a task to push to maven, but not to
JPackage. Any possibility of adding a task to notify the JPackage folks
of the release and per
ng to have some questions.
I think the first one would be:
Is http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-lucene/ReleaseTodo up to date?
Otis
- Original Message
From: Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 12:42:01 PM
Subject: [VOTE] 2.0 r
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
he.org
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 12:42:01 PM
Subject: [VOTE] 2.0 release this Friday?
I propose to make Lucene release 2.0.0 this Friday, the 26th of May.
If there are bugs whose patches that you feel should be included in this
release, please lobby to have them committed prior to this
+1
Doug Cutting wrote:
I propose to make Lucene release 2.0.0 this Friday, the 26th of May.
If there are bugs whose patches that you feel should be included in
this release, please lobby to have them committed prior to this date.
Doug
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 09:42 -0700, Doug Cutting wrote:
I propose to make Lucene release 2.0.0 this Friday, the 26th of May.
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 09:42 -0700, Doug Cutting wrote:
> I propose to make Lucene release 2.0.0 this Friday, the 26th of May.
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 as well.
On May 22, 2006, at 2:16 PM, Daniel Naber wrote:
On Montag 22 Mai 2006 18:42, Doug Cutting wrote:
I propose to make Lucene release 2.0.0 this Friday, the 26th of May.
+1
--
http://www.danielnaber.de
-
To unsu
On Montag 22 Mai 2006 18:42, Doug Cutting wrote:
> I propose to make Lucene release 2.0.0 this Friday, the 26th of May.
+1
--
http://www.danielnaber.de
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mai
I propose to make Lucene release 2.0.0 this Friday, the 26th of May.
If there are bugs whose patches that you feel should be included in this
release, please lobby to have them committed prior to this date.
Doug
-
To unsubscr
Duh, sorry for the noise. I didn't see that attachment in the other message.
It looks like it wasn't stripped after all.
Otis
- Original Message
From: Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2006 11:08:42 AM
Subject:
ct: Re: 2.0 release
Previously, I replied to another thread on Vectors.
The attached .xsl file which shows avg. msec. for changing buffer sizes,
reported from an experiment on TREC collection.
This might help for a decision.
Cheers,
Murat
> I recall somebody (Doug, I think, but I could
ucene.apache.org; Maxim Patramanskij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2006 7:11:42 PM
> Subject: Re: 2.0 release
>
> --- Maxim Patramanskij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Currently, buffer sizes for BufferedIndexInput and
>> BufferedIndexOutput are
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org; Maxim Patramanskij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2006 7:11:42 PM
Subject: Re: 2.0 release
--- Maxim Patramanskij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Currently, buffer sizes for BufferedIndexInput and
> BufferedIndexOutput are
--- Maxim Patramanskij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Currently, buffer sizes for BufferedIndexInput and
> BufferedIndexOutput are equals and have constant
> size of 1024 bytes.
>
> When using a database for index persistence, it
> slowdowns performance much
> because of relatively small buffer si
Currently, buffer sizes for BufferedIndexInput and
BufferedIndexOutput are equals and have constant size of 1024 bytes.
When using a database for index persistence, it slowdowns performance much
because of relatively small buffer size. With JDBCDirectory and buffer
size increased from 1Kb to 16K
uot;Fix Version" to 2.0. If reasonable,
commit it and resolve the bug.
Then we can get a succinct list of bugs that we need to fix before we
make the 2.0 release.
Thanks,
Doug
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTE
: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: 2.0 release
Are there any changes folks think we need before we make the 2.0
release? The major change from 1.9, removal of deprecated items, has
been made. Anything else critical?
Doug
--
e.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-362
Chuck
Doug Cutting wrote on 04/27/2006 12:19 PM:
> Are there any changes folks think we need before we make the 2.0
> release? The major change from 1.9, removal of deprecated items, has
> been made. Anything else crit
: I should have been more clear: I'm not asking for new feature requests.
: Rather for known, high-priority, bugs.
I don't know if it's high priority, but LUCENE-546 seems to be a trivial
bug with a trivial fix ("seems to be", i'm judging purely by the patch)
2.0 also seems like the best time
On 4/27/06, Robert Engels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about making IndexReader & IndexWriter interfaces? Or creating
> interfaces for these (IReader & IWriter?), and making all of the classes use
> the interfaces?
There is a drawback to interfaces too... you can't easily add an extra
method
Robert Engels wrote:
What about making IndexReader & IndexWriter interfaces? Or creating
interfaces for these (IReader & IWriter?), and making all of the classes use
the interfaces?
I should have been more clear: I'm not asking for new feature requests.
Rather for known, high-priority, bugs.
Maybe a fix for
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-556
might be warranted?
-Yonik
On 4/27/06, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are there any changes folks think we need before we make the 2.0
> release? The major change from 1.9, removal of deprecated items, has
java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: 2.0 release
Are there any changes folks think we need before we make the 2.0
release? The major change from 1.9, removal of deprecated items, has
been made. Anything else critical?
Doug
-
To unsubscribe
karl wettin wrote:
Not critical in any way, but I would not mind if Term and Document were
interfaces instead of final classes.
That's not likely to happen before the 2.0 release. We're looking
high-priority, back-compatible bug fixes at this poi
28 apr 2006 kl. 00.19 skrev Doug Cutting:
Are there any changes folks think we need before we make the 2.0
release? The major change from 1.9, removal of deprecated items,
has been made. Anything else critical?
Not critical in any way, but I would not mind if Term and Document
were
Are there any changes folks think we need before we make the 2.0
release? The major change from 1.9, removal of deprecated items, has
been made. Anything else critical?
Doug
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
28 matches
Mail list logo
