The Solr user list is the correct list for questions like this.
Sometimes you can end up in a situation where the root index folders exist
in HDFS, but with no files in them. You may need to manually remove them
and try again.
- Mark
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 3:00 PM Robert B Hamilton
. It is possible that the mirror you
are using may not have replicated the release yet. If that is the
case, please try another mirror. This also goes for Maven access.
Happy Holidays,
Mark Miller
http://www.about.me/markrmiller
. If that is the
case, please try another mirror. This also goes for Maven access.
Happy Holidays,
Mark Miller
http://www.about.me/markrmiller
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
October 2013, Apache Solr™ 4.5.1 available
The Lucene PMC is pleased to announce the release of Apache Solr 4.5.1
Solr is the popular, blazing fast, open source NoSQL search platform
from the Apache Lucene project. Its major features include
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
October 2013, Apache Lucene™ 4.5.1 available
The Lucene PMC is pleased to announce the release of Apache Lucene 4.5.1
Apache Lucene is a high-performance, full-featured text search engine
library written entirely in Java. It is a technology suitable
April 2013, Apache Lucene™ 4.2.1 available
The Lucene PMC is pleased to announce the release of Apache Lucene 4.2.1.
Apache Lucene is a high-performance, full-featured text search engine
library written entirely in Java. It is a technology suitable for nearly
any application that requires
On Mar 8, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Rafał Radecki radecki.ra...@gmail.com wrote:
Is this not a bug?
It likely is - replication had some regressions recently - they have been fixed
in 4.2 (coming any day now) and additional unit tests have been added to
prevent a future similar lapse.
- Mark
I'm please to announce that Sami Siren has accepted the PMC's
invitation to join.
Welcome Sami!
- Mark
On Jul 9, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
I'd like to add the new ASF comment system to the Lucene websites:
https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/asf_comments_system_live
Thoughts?
Steve
+1 to try it out.
- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com
in 'as themselves' and be
spared this?
- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com
seeking help subscriping you reply to a specific 'reject'
address with a note pointing them to the subscribe instructions)
http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#mail-moderate
-Hoss
Add me up.
- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com
Welcome guys ! Looking forward to seeing you again at buzzwords Chris*!
(*excellent speaker)
- Mark
think we should try to close the book on anything anyone
wants to discuss. I found that discussion useful myself.
Spreading and communicating the Apache Way is part of what we should be doing.
- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com
Lucene/Solr User Conference
May 25-26, San Francisco
On Apr 27, 2011, at 5:49 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
Consider this: if you did the work necessary to make join a module and
polished it all off and submitted it to Lucene - you think yonik standing
alone would
. But rather than arguing about
who's
right (maybe both?) since enough of us feel it's no longer mutually
beneficial,
we should stop fighting and just go our separate ways.
Please VOTE to create a new Apache Solr TLP.
Here's my +1
-Yonik
- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com
Lucene/Solr User
would I think.
It really seems to come down to robert/simon and yonik being really opposed
here. This bubbles up every few weeks. I just don't know how to fix that - does
anybody? I want to fix things as much as anyone - but what now? We have hashed
everything over and over.
- Mark Miller
is a mistake. If someone wants to
do it the other way, great too. Users benefit in both cases and I am happy.
- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com
Lucene/Solr User Conference
May 25-26, San Francisco
www.lucenerevolution.org
On Apr 26, 2011, at 8:21 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 26, 2011, at 7:43 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
I totally agree with Robert and Simon that it is currently very frustrating
that moving code to Lucene is being
On 6/15/10 1:38 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
On 06/14/2010 05:16 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head arround the idea of Lucy moving
from the Lucene TLP to the Incubator TLP. It probably would have made
sense for Lucy start in the Incubator years ago, but I'm not
On 6/11/10 11:58 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
Hi all,
It is not yet quite clear if we should release take2 or take1 of the
artifacts. Both are on my people account, please vote:
[1] Release
http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/lucene-2.9.3-3.0.2-take2-r
ev953716/ including LUCENE-2494
I'd say that's a very weird type of issue to cause a respin and get
everyone to test and vote again, but I won't say I'm against.
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com (mobile)
On Jun 11, 2010, at 7:13 AM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote:
Hi all,
Simon and me decided, that we want
On 03/14/2010 12:12 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
But I also recall people (Mark Miller maybe?) saying that the votes are not
being counted and we are just looking to get an idea about the sentiment on
this suggestion (paraphrasing him, sorry if I messed something up).
Otis
When I tallied
Hatcher
Chris Hostetter : -1
Grant Ingersoll : +1
Mike Klaas
Shalin Shekhar Mangar : +1
Ryan McKinley : +1
Mark Miller : +1
Noble Paul : +1
Yonik Seeley : +1
Koji Sekiguchi : +1
Michael Busch : +1
Doron Cohen
Mike McCandless : +1
Bernhard Messer
Robert Muir : +1
Uwe Schindler : +1
Wolfgang Hoschek
On 03/08/2010 09:32 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
Yet the information we were voting on is public information really and this doesn't
really count as sensitive IMO.
Any thing I send to private@, I kind of count on not being public. I'd
rather you not decide that for me. In this case, I'm
On 03/08/2010 09:49 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
Question: Is it sufficient to have more +1s than -1s for this vote to
pass? I thought for votes as significant as this one a -1 veto is a
showstopper?
Hey Michael - its a good question. And I think the answer is, this is
not a vote that can
On 03/08/2010 09:50 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
won't
happen again.
Thanks - I'm obviously not terribly upset about it, but I'd like to
feel that things I send to private won't go public without me making it
so, since I will write those emails thinking such.
--
- Mark
On 03/09/2010 12:14 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
On 3/8/10 8:24 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
I don't think any of it's a showstopper,
I'm surprised here after reading the Apache voting page. This proposal
contains points that involve code restructurings.
The veto is reserved for code
be
determined like we normally do that stuff.
- Mark
On 03/09/2010 12:26 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
On 03/09/2010 12:14 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
On 3/8/10 8:24 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
I don't think any of it's a showstopper,
I'm surprised here after reading the Apache voting page. This
proposal
Hey Chris,
see my response to Michael.
But quickly,
the first star is not a code change. Its procedural.
the second star, and I'm sure youll have arguments with this :), is not
something we are specifically voting on. The reason we are merging dev
is obviously so that those changes can
sense - its not a vote where specific code
refactorings matter at all - we don't develop and organize code with PMC
votes.
On 03/09/2010 12:40 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
Hey Chris,
see my response to Michael.
But quickly,
the first star is not a code change. Its procedural.
the second star, and I'm
On 03/04/2010 09:21 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
Are we still voting or is this already a discussion?
As far as I'm concerned, a vote is on - the vote was started and people
are voting.
If the majority vote +1, the vote would still conceivably pass - if
people think its not
right to vote now
Original Message
Subject:Re: Vote on merging dev of Lucene and Solr
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 20:01:54 +0530
From: Noble Paul ??? ?? noble.p...@gmail.com
Reply-To: java-...@lucene.apache.org
To: java-...@lucene.apache.org
CC:
On 03/04/2010 11:24 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
So, in the end, +1 on the vote, w/ the exception of the lockstep releases,
which I think we should defer to the community once it's fully formed to work
out the details.
-Grant
I don't think you can really cherry pick what you +1 on though.
For those trying to keep track of the current voting, here is a list of
the Lucene/Solr committers and what I have seen of their votes thus far:
Bill Au
Doug Cutting
Otis Gospodnetić
Erik Hatcher
Chris Hostetter
Grant Ingersoll - +1*
Mike Klaas
Shalin Shekhar Mangar - +1
Ryan McKinley
Mark
On 03/04/2010 01:04 PM, Michael McCandless wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
Why don't we just start by attempting to have a common dev list and
merging committers, in the hopes that it will promote better
communication about features
On 03/04/2010 02:13 PM, Andi Vajda wrote:
I am -1 making it a requirement that in order to release Lucene we'd
have to release Solr too.
It would seem to make sense though - if Lucene is releases, it makes
sense that Solr would release too with the Lucene improvements/fixes.
As yonik
+1
On 03/04/2010 04:34 PM, Michael McCandless wrote:
I forgot my vote: +1
Mike
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
A new vote, that slightly changes proposal from last vote (adding only
that Lucene can cut a release even if Solr doesn't):
On 03/04/2010 06:00 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
Here is my concern:
* Merging the dev lists into a single list.
My concern is that people will be overwhelmed with the volume. Individual -dev
lists are already pretty high traffic and hard to follow regularly. I dread
coming back from
On 03/03/2010 05:42 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
Many Lucene/Solr committers think that merging development would be a
benefit to both projects.
Separate downloads would remain (among other things), so end users
would not be impacted (except for higher quality products over time).
Since this is a
is too broad. E.g. I'm ok with merging
dev-lists and committers, but unhappy about aligning releases. What
points exactly are we voting here on?
Michael
On 3/3/10 3:54 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
See the linked to discussion. (I know its pretty long)
I think Mike covered the broad strokes here:
http
{quote}If so, that may be the best of all worlds,
allowing project independence, but also not following the Apache
antipattern as Doug put it...{quote}
That would really be no real world change from how things work today. The fact
is, today, Solr already operates essentially as an independent
That's fine with me ;)
I can certainly see people thinking both ways. I'm sure neither approach
is a clear win in every aspect.
- Mark
On 03/01/2010 11:06 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your message. I respect your viewpoint, but I respectfully disagree.
It just
On 02/28/2010 12:52 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
... I think it's a good
idea for SOLR to ride on Lucene's trunk again...
However, I'm -1 for these points:
* When a change it committed to Lucene, it must pass all Solr tests.
* Release both at once.
These are huge reasons why we *don't* want
On 02/28/2010 01:32 PM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote:
A Lucene
change that fails Solr's tests is either a bug or a backwards-incompatible
API change.
Not always. I still argue that per segment searching was a valid change
that was backwards compatible - but it broke Solr because Solr
You would still be able to. I still have some misgivings too, but this
should not be one of them. Lucene would still exist without Solr for
those that don't use Solr.
On 02/26/2010 04:44 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
-1, I dont use Solr, I still want to be able to use Lucene without any Solr
Aaron Schon wrote:
Hi all, I know that persisting a Lucene query by query ToString() method. Is
there any way of reconstructing the query from the string itself?
The usecase is that I will be storing a library of queries as strings and
load the appropriate query (from the string) based on
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
[ Click on Package org.apache.lucene.spatial.tier ]
Lots of red text -- guess they're serious about this not being a stable API.
We put all that red in after realizing all the other issues existed -
lest someone think this was a polished, finished contrib. When we
Okay, lets give this a shot:
The (proposed) release artifacts have been built and are up at:
http://people.apache.org/~markrmiller/staging-area/lucene2.9/
The changes are here:
http://people.apache.org/~markrmiller/staging-area/lucene2.9changes/
Please vote to officially release these
talk by Marc K. since no one on Nutch has stepped
up
yet.
17:00 - 17:50 Session 5: Lucene and Solr Performance Tuning (Mark Miller)
Day 2:
10:00 - 10:50 Session 1: Implementing an Information Retrieval Framework
for an Organizational Repository - Sithu D Sudarsan
10:50 - 11:15
I would do a performance talk - I'll be there anyway. I just hadn't seen my
name on the wiki.
- Mark
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.orgwrote:
: * The meetup schedule seems pretty heavy with four 30 min
: presentations. I'd either squeeze them to 15
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Some interesting discussion at
http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/05/18/copying-trec-is-the-wrong-track-for-the-enterprise/
That was an interesting read. I think a lot of the argument misses the
point. It doesn't seem to me that the main benefit or intent comes from
'bake
IRENE SANCHEZ BODEGA wrote:
Hello!
I'm a spanish Telecommunications student.I'm using Lucene to index some documents and I've goy a question.
the fact is that I index a document (only one). When I use Luke to confirm the information, I see the information is ok.
But when I open an IndexReader,
52 matches
Mail list logo
