: LUCENE-1749 FieldCache introspection API Unassigned 16/Jul/09
:
: You have time to work on this Hoss?
i'd have more time if there weren't so many darn solr-user questions that
no one else answers.
The meat of the patch (adding an API to inspect the cache) could be
commited as is today --
> LUCENE-1448 add getFinalOffset() to TokenStream Michael Busch 24/Jun/09
>
> This still needs to be addressed or pushed - the patch is good for
the old API but needs an update to the new API - sounds like the method of
> doing this has been worked out,
> but still needs to be addressed. If
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Hey all, ready to get Lucene 2.9 out? Here are the remaining issues. I think
> we are very close. There are 17 issues, but 3 of them are sub tasks of
> another, so there is less than there looks.
>
> ISSUE - SUMMARY - ASSIGNEE - LAST UPDATED
>
>
Hey all, ready to get Lucene 2.9 out? Here are the remaining issues. I think
we are very close. There are 17 issues, but 3 of them are sub tasks of
another, so there is less than there looks.
ISSUE - SUMMARY - ASSIGNEE - LAST UPDATED
LUCENE-1504 SerialChainFilter should use DocSet API rather the
such.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
> From: Michael McCandless
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 10:04:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
>
> I agree.
>
> I'm
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Jason
Rutherglen wrote:
>> I pretty much find any excuse to go and write stuff in Python
>
> There's Scala...
I've only read about it so far but it does look good.
Mike
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> I pretty much find any excuse to go and write stuff in Python
There's Scala...
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> > Michael Busch wrote:
> >>
> >> Everyone who is unhappy with the relea
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Michael Busch wrote:
>>
>> Everyone who is unhappy with the release TODO's, go back in your mail
>> archive to the 2.2 release and check how many tedious little changes we made
>> to improve the release quality. And besides the maven stuff, ther
Michael Busch wrote:
Everyone who is unhappy with the release TODO's, go back in your mail
archive to the 2.2 release and check how many tedious little changes
we made to improve the release quality. And besides the maven stuff,
there is not really more to do compared to pre-2.2, it's just
d
+1
Michael
On 6/17/09 10:32 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
Michael Busch wrote:
We should just not put more items in the 2.9 list anymore (except bug
fixes of course) and then fix the 30 issues and don't rush them too
much. If it takes until end of July I think that's acceptable. A good
quality of
Michael Busch wrote:
We should just not put more items in the 2.9 list anymore (except bug
fixes of course) and then fix the 30 issues and don't rush them too
much. If it takes until end of July I think that's acceptable. A good
quality of the release should be highest priority in my opinion.
That means the release frequency should not exceed the new-committer
frequency. :)
On 6/17/09 10:09 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
Michael Busch wrote:
One?!? I did 2.2, 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2!
What can you do ... there was no new guy to relieve you :)
---
We should just not put more items in the 2.9 list anymore (except bug
fixes of course) and then fix the 30 issues and don't rush them too
much. If it takes until end of July I think that's acceptable. A good
quality of the release should be highest priority in my opinion.
Michael
On 6/17/09
Michael Busch wrote:
wanted to get 2.9 out really really soon.
really, really is probably not totally accurate. I just know how things
can get drawn out. Even still, we have 30 some issues to resolve. If we
don't make a drive though, when will 2.9 come out? Next fall at the
earliest? Later? S
Michael Busch wrote:
One?!? I did 2.2, 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2!
What can you do ... there was no new guy to relieve you :)
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.
On 6/17/09 6:23 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
I have a special gift in not being clear.
I was just saying "be prepared, your turn is coming ;) "
But I havn't done a release myself - we don't release that often
despite discussion that we should release more often every year or so.
I did notice thoug
I'm happy to hear that :)
I suggested 2-3 weeks to prevent the schedule from being even tighter,
as it sounded like you guys wanted to get 2.9 out really really soon.
I'm really busy the rest of June and will have much more time for Lucene
in July. So if we could wait until end of July before
Let's not forget Nutch... Also, for that matter, Mahout uses Lucene's
Analysis and Core (in fact, I just committed MAHOUT-126 which allows
one to create Vectors from a Lucene index!), although those are just
as consumers, I doubt there is a need for Mahout committers to change
Lucene.
O
On Jun 17, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Grant
Ingersoll wrote:
On Jun 16, 2009, at 7:16 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
There are parts that aren't strictly part of the release process
IMO -
things like maven seem optional.
-1. Maven support is not op
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 7:16 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>> There are parts that aren't strictly part of the release process IMO -
>> things like maven seem optional.
>
> -1. Maven support is not optional.
I can't always follow Lucene closely, but
I agree.
I'm picturing some hopefully-not-that-distant future when we have a
queries "module" and analysis "module" that live quite separately from
Lucene & Solr's "core", and committers from both Solr and Lucene would
work on it.
Mike
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>
I have a special gift in not being clear.
I was just saying "be prepared, your turn is coming ;) "
But I havn't done a release myself - we don't release that often despite
discussion that we should release more often every year or so.
I did notice though, that Mike did the release right after
> Uwe Schindler wrote:
> > Maybe Mark helps me and I can do
> > it alone the next time, if I have to? :-)
> >
> Tag team effort ? It will be my first release to, so that would be great !
Ah ok, I interpreted your mail different yesterday (but it was 1 or 2 am in
Germany...).
Uwe
--
On Jun 17, 2009, at 4:42 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
I would love to see function queries consolidated between Solr and
Lucene! I think it's a prime example of duplicated and then diverged
sources between Lucene and Solr...
The primary reason it's diverged is it gets a lot of attention on
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 7:16 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Mark Miller
> > wrote:
> > There are parts that aren't strictly part of the release process IMO -
> > things like maven seem optional.
>
> -1. Maven support is not optional.
>
> +1 for more automation. Fo
Uwe Schindler wrote:
Maybe Mark helps me and I can do
it alone the next time, if I have to? :-)
Tag team effort ? It will be my first release to, so that would be great !
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
-
To
On Jun 16, 2009, at 7:16 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Mark Miller
wrote:
There are parts that aren't strictly part of the release process IMO -
things like maven seem optional.
-1. Maven support is not optional.
+1 for more automation. For the record, once set
; From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:43 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
>
> > How soon is soon? Code freeze in 2-3 wee
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
> How soon is soon? Code freeze in 2-3 weeks or so maybe? Then 7-10 days
> testing, so 2.9 should be out mid July? Sounds reasonable?
This schedule might be tight for me... I'm "on vacation" for the week
starting Jun 29. Hopefully I can most
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Michael
McCandless wrote:
> I would love to see function queries consolidated between Solr and
> Lucene! I think it's a prime example of duplicated and then diverged
> sources between Lucene and Solr...
>
> And it's fabulous that you are "volunteering", Simon ;)
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>> I've looked at the release todo wiki and I am still having nightmares.
>
> Indeed - it's gotten 5 times longer since the last time I did Lucene or Solr.
> There are parts that aren't strict
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
> Cool, seems like Mark is volunteering to be the 2.9 release manager ;)
Yay!
Mike
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e
I would love to see function queries consolidated between Solr and
Lucene! I think it's a prime example of duplicated and then diverged
sources between Lucene and Solr...
And it's fabulous that you are "volunteering", Simon ;) We have
precious few volunteers that stride both communities well eno
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Yonik
Seeley wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Simon
> Willnauer wrote:
>> I was thinking of adding a patch for
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1085
>
> That's *way* too big of an issue and it breaks back compat in Solr (to
> change from Sol
> Mark Miller wrote:
> > Duck Uwe :)
> Clarification: Duck next time. As long as I have the time to do it
> (meaning, if it doesnt take as much time as it looks) , I will do it :)
What a hell! OK, next time...
-
To unsubscribe,
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> I've looked at the release todo wiki and I am still having nightmares.
Indeed - it's gotten 5 times longer since the last time I did Lucene or Solr.
There are parts that aren't strictly part of the release process IMO -
things like maven seem o
Mark Miller wrote:
Duck Uwe :)
Clarification: Duck next time. As long as I have the time to do it
(meaning, if it doesnt take as much time as it looks) , I will do it :)
- Mark
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@
Michael Busch wrote:
Cool, seems like Mark is volunteering to be the 2.9 release manager ;)
I may look stupid, but I saw that one coming. I briefly considered
opening a 2.9 JIRA issue, assigned and titled "Make Lucene release
processes one click", but I thought maybe I better not bring attentio
Cool, seems like Mark is volunteering to be the 2.9 release manager ;)
I need to get the TokenStream API changes in and ideally LUCENE-1448.
How soon is soon? Code freeze in 2-3 weeks or so maybe? Then 7-10 days
testing, so 2.9 should be out mid July? Sounds reasonable?
Michael
On 6/16/09 2
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Simon
Willnauer wrote:
> I was thinking of adding a patch for
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1085
That's *way* too big of an issue and it breaks back compat in Solr (to
change from Solr's to Lucene's version - I know many people who have
implemented
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> My email client lost the original thread:
>
> So far, both Mike and I have voiced our desire to get a 2.9 release out the
> door soon. Java 1.5 awaits us on the other side :) No one else has really
> weighed in though. I've jumped in an started
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> So far, both Mike and I have voiced our desire to get a 2.9 release out the
> door soon.
+1
My silence was mainly because I wasn't sure I had too much time to do
anything on it myself (outside issues assigned to me of course).
-Yonik
http://w
My email client lost the original thread:
So far, both Mike and I have voiced our desire to get a 2.9 release out
the door soon. Java 1.5 awaits us on the other side :) No one else has
really weighed in though. I've jumped in an started to squeeze the 2.9
JIRA list with Mike anyway.
Is there
43 matches
Mail list logo
