[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1218?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12779875#action_12779875
]
Mark Diggory commented on SOLR-1218:
I've set about doing my own Maven war pom and distr
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1575?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Noble Paul closed SOLR-1575.
Resolution: Invalid
It may not be due to solr.xml itself. Further investigation may reveal what is
wrong..
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12779887#action_12779887
]
Shalin Shekhar Mangar commented on SOLR-1570:
-
bq. Shalin: your patch looks good
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1574?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12779955#action_12779955
]
Grant Ingersoll commented on SOLR-1574:
---
+1. This was my first time writing functions
undesirable dataDir default in example config
-
Key: SOLR-1577
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1577
Project: Solr
Issue Type: Bug
Reporter: Yonik Seeley
Prio
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1577?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12779996#action_12779996
]
Yonik Seeley commented on SOLR-1577:
Does anyone remember a reason why we haven't change
Develop a Spatial Query Parser
--
Key: SOLR-1578
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1578
Project: Solr
Issue Type: New Feature
Reporter: Grant Ingersoll
Fix For: 1.5
Given a
What should the next version of Solr be?
Options:
- have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 2.9.x
- have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 3.x, with weaker back compat given all
of the removed lucene deprecations from 2.9->3.0
- have a Solr 2.0 with a lucene 3.x
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> What should the next version of Solr be?
>
> Options:
> - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 2.9.x
> - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 3.x, with weaker back compat given all
> of the removed lucene deprecations from 2.9->3.0
> - have a Solr 2.0 with
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1574?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Yonik Seeley updated SOLR-1574:
---
Attachment: SOLR-1574.patch
Update adding a bunch of other functions from Math (sin,cos, etc) now that
Yonik Seeley wrote:
> What should the next version of Solr be?
>
> Options:
> - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 2.9.x
> - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 3.x, with weaker back compat given all
> of the removed lucene deprecations from 2.9->3.0
> - have a Solr 2.0 with a lucene 3.x
>
> -Yonik
> http://w
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780135#action_12780135
]
Hoss Man commented on SOLR-1570:
bq. The getIndexedField method already does this but it thr
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Hoss Man updated SOLR-1570:
---
Description: When loading a new schema, Solr should log some "SEVERE"
warnings if the schema uses a uniqueKey
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1570?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780136#action_12780136
]
Hoss Man commented on SOLR-1570:
And FWIW: even if Lance has a really compelling reason, i t
Since Solr is dependent on Lucene I agree that there should be a major
version number bump in Solr whenever there is one in Lucene:
Solr 2.x with Lucene 3.x
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Yonik Seeley wrote:
> > What should the next version of Solr be?
> >
> > Options:
>
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1577?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780183#action_12780183
]
Hoss Man commented on SOLR-1577:
I don't have the code/configs in front of me, but if i reme
Am i seriously the only person who can reproduce this so easily when
upgrading from 1.3 to 1.4?
It seems like it should be a serious bug biting lots of people in the ass.
: Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:21:38 -0800 (PST)
: From: Chris Hostetter
: Reply-To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
: To: solr-de
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1578?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780184#action_12780184
]
Jason Rutherglen commented on SOLR-1578:
GBase http://code.google.com/apis/base/docs
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1577?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780195#action_12780195
]
Yonik Seeley commented on SOLR-1577:
bq. 2. that the legacy behavior of was to be resol
On FieldType, the getValueSource(SchemaField, QParser) implementation just
calls the deprecated getValueSource(SchemaField) method.
/** called to get the default value source (normally, from the
* Lucene FieldCache.)
*/
public ValueSource getValueSource(SchemaField field, QParser parser
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-412?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780284#action_12780284
]
Age Jan Kuperus commented on SOLR-412:
--
I agree. Although I was pretty sure XSLT 2.0 was
Unfortunately I accidentally started this thread on java-dev.
FWIW, I agree with Ryan's ranking below:
> In general, I wonder where the solr back-compatibility contract applies (and
> to what degree). For solr, I would rank > the importance as:
> #1 - the URL API syntax. Client query parameters
Gun to my head the ranking makes sense - but I don't think it has any
practical application. Plugin back compat is important and independnt
of the urls.
I think solrj back compat is important too - I can understand
experimental, but it's still important.
- Mark
http://www.lucidimaginatio
Hey,
I've noticed the solrconfig.xml gives an example using a 'overwriteDupes'
parameter for the Deudplication component.
Should probably add this setting + description of what it does to the
'Settings' section in the Deduplication Solr Wiki.
Regards,
-Chak
Hey Yonik,
My personal experience with this is if you jump directly to 2.0, you'll have
people wondering where 1.5, 1.6-->1.9 is in the CM system, and this would
create some confusion unless it is documented well. This may warrant rethinking
the tag structure a bit in SVN, or perhaps even the r
CLONE -stats.jsp XML escaping
-
Key: SOLR-1579
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1579
Project: Solr
Issue Type: Bug
Components: web gui
Reporter: David Bowen
Assigne
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1579?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
David Bowen updated SOLR-1579:
--
Description:
The fix to SOLR-1008 was wrong. It used chardata escaping for a value that is
an at
Solr Configuration ignores 'mergeFactor' parameter, always uses Lucene default
--
Key: SOLR-1580
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1580
Project: Solr
I
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1580?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Lance Norskog updated SOLR-1580:
Attachment: SOLR-1580.patch
> Solr Configuration ignores 'mergeFactor' parameter, always uses Lucene
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1316?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780435#action_12780435
]
Mike Anderson commented on SOLR-1316:
-
Two questions, and apologies if they are addresse
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1580?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780449#action_12780449
]
Mark Miller commented on SOLR-1580:
---
Looks like this was dropped a commit or two ago:
r81
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1579?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mark Miller updated SOLR-1579:
--
Fix Version/s: (was: 1.4)
1.5
> CLONE -stats.jsp XML escaping
> -
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1580?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12780453#action_12780453
]
Mark Miller commented on SOLR-1580:
---
So the workaround is to use the functionality of SOLR
Ryan McKinley wrote:
>>>
>>> In general, I wonder where the solr back-compatibility contract
>>> applies (and to what degree). For solr, I would rank the importance
>>> as:
>>> #1 - the URL API syntax. Client query parameters should change as
>>> little as possible
>>> #2 - configuration
>>> #3 -
switching back to solr-dev... sorry for spinning off that thread...
What is a serious change that would warrant a bump in your opinion?
for example:
- config overhaul. detangle the XML from the components. perhaps
using
spring.
This is already done. No components read config from xml an
To be clear, I am not against bumping to solr 2.0 -- I just have high
aspirations (yet little time) for what a 2.0 bump could mean for
solr.
By the way, I don't disagree with this at all - I don't think now is
the time to decide this. We don't even know what's going to happen. I
just thi
36 matches
Mail list logo
