[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-497) update copyright (and licence) prior to release of 1.9

[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-497?page=comments#action_12366459 ] Erik Hatcher commented on LUCENE-497: - Copyright dates should only change when the file itself has changed. This is the way things have operated in other Apache projects

Re: 1.9 RC1

I've been away from constant e-mail for several days (nice while it lasted, but rough to come back to!)... I'm +1 for 1.9 RC1, just for the record. As for the copyright years - those should reflect only the years those files were touched, at least that is how it is carefully done with Ant

[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-497) update copyright (and licence) prior to release of 1.9

[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-497?page=comments#action_12366465 ] John Haxby commented on LUCENE-497: --- It's not as if I'm a lawyer either or what I say is likely to carry much weight, but what Yonik and Erik say matches what the legal peop

Re: 1.9 RC1

Doug, what about including optimization of BuffereIndexOutput.writeBytes() method: [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-435?page=all ] made by Lukas Zapletal, into 1.9? I'm wondering, because this can decrease index creation time, which I discovered as critical when using Lucene toget

Re: 1.9 RC1

Not to get to far ahead, but what is the schedule relation between 1.9 and 2.0? What are the dependencies on releasing 2.0? Doug Cutting wrote: I'd like to push out a 1.9 release candidate in the next week or so. Are there any patches folks are really hoping to sneak into 1.9? If so, now's th

Re: 1.9 RC1

On Feb 15, 2006, at 9:11 AM, DM Smith wrote: Not to get to far ahead, but what is the schedule relation between 1.9 and 2.0? What are the dependencies on releasing 2.0? My understanding is that 2.0 will be 1.9 with all the deprecated API removed. Maybe there are other features planned?

Re: 1.9 RC1

Erik Hatcher wrote: On Feb 15, 2006, at 9:11 AM, DM Smith wrote: Not to get to far ahead, but what is the schedule relation between 1.9 and 2.0? What are the dependencies on releasing 2.0? My understanding is that 2.0 will be 1.9 with all the deprecated API removed. Maybe there are other fe

[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-483) QueryParser.getFieldQuery(String,String) doesn't set default slop on MultiPhraseQuery

[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-483?page=comments#action_12366515 ] Hoss Man commented on LUCENE-483: - Yonik: the PATCH also included additions to TestMultiAnalyzer.java but those don't seem to have been commited. > QueryParser.getFieldQu

[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-483) QueryParser.getFieldQuery(String,String) doesn't set default slop on MultiPhraseQuery

[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-483?page=comments#action_12366517 ] Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-483: - Thanks for the heads up. I just committed it. > QueryParser.getFieldQuery(String,String) doesn't set default slop on > MultiPhrase

Re: 1.9 RC1

DM Smith wrote: Would that mean that 1.9 and 2.0 will be released at the same time? No. 2.0 will be released after 1.9. The primary change will be that all deprecated methods are removed, but there may be other changes, but probably not many. Doug

[jira] Created: (LUCENE-498) Remove old @jakarta.apache.org mailing lists

Remove old @jakarta.apache.org mailing lists Key: LUCENE-498 URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-498 Project: Lucene - Java Type: Task Reporter: Otis Gospodnetic Priority: Minor Could you please remo

[jira] Deleted: (LUCENE-498) Remove old @jakarta.apache.org mailing lists

[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-498?page=all ] Otis Gospodnetic deleted LUCENE-498: > Remove old @jakarta.apache.org mailing lists > > > Key: LUCENE-498 > URL: http://issue