Hmm. On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds good to me. > > Not sure if anyone else is seeing this but the unit tests are not > passing for me on ubuntu. I see one failure and two errors. > > Failed tests: > > testSafeModeSetInFuture(org.apache.blur.manager.clusterstatus.ZookeeperClusterStatusTest)
Haven't seen this. > Tests in error: > testTermDocIterable(org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterableTest) This either. > org.apache.blur.thrift.BlurClusterTest: java.lang.NullPointerException I think I have been seeing this one during some functional tests. Haven't figured out the cause yet, but it seems like it's a nasty threading problem. Because when I drop the mutate threads back 1 everything works fine. However the test was passing on OSX. > > Just me or is this expected? Not expected. I'm going to setup a VM on computer to run tests in Linux as well. > > Patrick > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote: >> We can fix the jira issues. >> >> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Garrett Barton >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Sounds good to me Aaron, call it 0.2. Does that mess up Jira if you have >>> things scheduled against releases? >>> On Oct 21, 2012 9:44 AM, "Aaron McCurry" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Ok, I think it will be some time before all the changes for the new >>>> api are in place and fully functional. So perhaps we should merge the >>>> lucene-4.0.0 branch into master and fix whatever bugs are found. I >>>> did some system testing yesterday and only found one big issue. There >>>> seems to be a threading problem with the BlurAnalyzer. If a single >>>> instance is in use across multiple threads some weird behaviors >>>> happen. Otherwise everything else seems to work, normally (I will >>>> create a jira issue). >>>> >>>> If we do merge the lucene-4.0.0 branch, I feel like we should change >>>> the version to 0.2. The reason is, the indexes in 0.1.x are not going >>>> to be backwards compatible (at least not with out some work). Does >>>> anyone have any strong feelings on this? >>>> >>>> Aaron >>>> >>>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Gagan Juneja >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > I agree with Garrett. We can merge this branch to the place from where we >>>> > cut it. Again as Garrett said If we want to keep only new api thing then >>>> we >>>> > can merge it to master as well. >>>> > >>>> > Regards, >>>> > Gagan >>>> > >>>> > On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Garrett Barton < >>>> [email protected]>wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> I guess it depends on if your planning a 1.4 release with lucene 4. If >>>> yes >>>> >> then merge and work towards making everything functional. If not then >>>> leave >>>> >> the 1.3.x in master for bug fixing or whatnot and merge this branch into >>>> >> the new api one. >>>> >> On Oct 20, 2012 11:03 AM, "Aaron McCurry" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> > I think that we can merge the lucene-4.0.0 branch back into the >>>> >> > master, since tests and code are compiling. I haven't done any >>>> >> > functional testing yet, but if much of the RPC and internals are going >>>> >> > to change I think that it may be a waste of time to test and fix >>>> >> > everything that we are about to change. What do others think? >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Aaron >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>>>
