.nabble.com/Which-version-of-Solr-tp2482468p2498641.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Jeff Schmidt
535 Consulting
j...@535consulting.com
(650) 423-1068
http://www.535consulting.com
-lucene.com/
- Original Message
From: Jeff Schmidt j...@535consulting.com
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Sat, February 12, 2011 4:37:37 PM
Subject: Which version of Solr?
Hello:
I'm working on incorporating Solr into a SaaS based life sciences semantic
search
Sent: Sat, February 12, 2011 4:37:37 PM
Subject: Which version of Solr?
Hello:
I'm working on incorporating Solr into a SaaS based life sciences semantic
search project. This will be released in about six months. I'm trying to
determine which version of Solr makes the most sense. When
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess it depends on how risk-averse you are. There are people using both
trunk and 3x in production.
Right. It also depends on how easy it is to re-index your data. If
it's hard/impossible, IMO that's the single
I guess I'll work with 3.x for now until some 4.0 feature makes me move to
trunk. For the next few months, re-indexing is not a problem, but once in
production one index directly under my control will be updated quarterly (maybe
monthly) with new content, while other indexes will be updated by
!
Jeff
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Jeff Schmidt j...@535consulting.com wrote:
Hello:
I'm working on incorporating Solr into a SaaS based life sciences semantic
search project. This will be released in about six months. I'm trying to
determine which version of Solr makes the most
months. I'm
trying to determine which version of Solr makes the most sense. When
going to the Solr download page, there are 1.3.0, 1.4.0, and 1.4.1. I've
been using 1.4.1 while going through some examples in my Packt book
(Solr 1.4 Enterprise Search Server).
But, I also see that Solr 3.1
in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Which-version-of-Solr-tp2482468p2498641.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
...@535consulting.com wrote:
Hello:
I'm working on incorporating Solr into a SaaS based life sciences semantic
search project. This will be released in about six months. I'm trying to
determine which version of Solr makes the most sense. When going to the Solr
download page, there are 1.3.0
guestimate on
the 3x release date is 3-4 weeks from now.
~ David Smiley (author of the packt book)
-
Author: https://www.packtpub.com/solr-1-4-enterprise-search-server/book
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Which-version-of-Solr-tp2482468p2487947
of the packt book)
-
Author: https://www.packtpub.com/solr-1-4-enterprise-search-server/book
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Which-version-of-Solr-tp2482468p2487947.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Jeff Schmidt
@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Sat, February 12, 2011 4:37:37 PM
Subject: Which version of Solr?
Hello:
I'm working on incorporating Solr into a SaaS based life sciences semantic
search project. This will be released in about six months. I'm trying to
determine which version of Solr makes the most sense
to
determine which version of Solr makes the most sense. When going to the Solr
download page, there are 1.3.0, 1.4.0, and 1.4.1. I've been using 1.4.1
while going through some examples in my Packt book (Solr 1.4 Enterprise
Search Server).
But, I also see that Solr 3.1 and 4.0
on incorporating Solr into a SaaS based life sciences semantic
search project. This will be released in about six months. I'm trying to
determine which version of Solr makes the most sense. When going to the Solr
download page, there are 1.3.0, 1.4.0, and 1.4.1. I've been using 1.4.1 while
Hi,
I've successfully downloaded and deployed 1.4.1, which is fine except it
doesn't support the spatial search stuff. I tried installing LocalSolr but
came to a bit of an impasse when it appeared to index stuff but didn't
return any results (and then I saw the last commit to the LocalSolr
The devs try and keep both the 3 and 4 (trunk) branches stable in the
terms you are talking about at all times. But bear in mind that more
radical changes will tend to hit trunk, probably making it by definition
less stable than 3. But it all depends - you might find a worse bug on
the 3 branch!
I'm kind of confused about Solr development plans in general,
highlighted by this thread.
I think 1.4.1 is the latest officially stable release, yes?
Why is there both a 1.5 and a 3.x, anyway? Not to mention a 4.x? Which
of these will end up being a stable release? Both? From which will
On 14.10.2010, at 19:50, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
I'm kind of confused about Solr development plans in general, highlighted by
this thread.
I think 1.4.1 is the latest officially stable release, yes?
Why is there both a 1.5 and a 3.x, anyway? Not to mention a 4.x?
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith m...@pooteeweet.org wrote:
the current confusing list of branches is a result of the merge of the lucene
and solr svn repositories. what baffpes me is that so far the countless
plea's for at least a rough roadmap or even just explanation for
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
I'm kind of confused about Solr development plans in general, highlighted by
this thread.
I think 1.4.1 is the latest officially stable release, yes?
Why is there both a 1.5 and a 3.x, anyway? Not to mention a 4.x?
Thanks Yonik! So I gather that the 1.5 branch has essentially been
abandoned, we can pretend it doesn't exist at all, it's been entirely
superceded by the 3.x branch, with the changes made just for the
purposes of syncronizing versions with lucene.
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
Thanks Yonik! So I gather that the 1.5 branch has essentially been
abandoned, we can pretend it doesn't exist at all, it's been entirely
superceded by the 3.x branch, with the changes made just for the purposes of
Hi,
Thank you all for your quick response. Just to clarify I take it for
my particular problem (taking advantage of the spatial search
functionality) my best option is 3.1 and that should be reasonably
stable?
As pointed out before it would be useful to have some kind of
documented road map for
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Mike Squire mike.squ...@gmail.com wrote:
As pointed out before it would be useful to have some kind of
documented road map for development, and some kind of indication of
how close certain versions are to release.
Such things have proven to be very unreliable
On 14.10.2010, at 21:02, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Mike Squire mike.squ...@gmail.com wrote:
As pointed out before it would be useful to have some kind of
documented road map for development, and some kind of indication of
how close certain versions are to release.
25 matches
Mail list logo
