On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Ok. Let me know how it goes and I can try and debug it a bit, although you're running much faster than I can at this point. ;-) Definitely let me know if you can't reproduce it and I'll dig into it for sure. Patrick > >> >> 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 >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >>>>>
