Re: Welcome Uwe Schindler to the Lucene PMC
Congrats Uwe!! :) On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: > Welcome, Uwe! > > Cheers, > Chris > > > On 4/1/10 4:05 AM, "Grant Ignersoll" wrote: > > I'm pleased to announce that the Lucene PMC has voted to add Uwe Schindler to > the PMC. Uwe has been doing a lot of work in Lucene and Solr, including > several of the last releases in Lucene. > > Please join me in extending congratulations to Uwe! > > -Grant Ingersoll > PMC Chair > > > > ++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Senior Computer Scientist > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > Email: chris.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++ > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++ > >
[jira] Commented: (SOLR-785) Distributed SpellCheckComponent
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-785?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12786635#action_12786635 ] Simon Willnauer commented on SOLR-785: -- FYI bq. Those changes are not yet ported to the Lucene 2.9 branch but will soon be. Done! > Distributed SpellCheckComponent > --- > > Key: SOLR-785 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-785 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: spellchecker >Reporter: Shalin Shekhar Mangar >Assignee: Shalin Shekhar Mangar > Fix For: 1.5 > > Attachments: SOLR-785.patch, SOLR-785.patch, spelling-shard.patch > > > Enhance the SpellCheckComponent to run in a distributed (sharded) environment. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
Re: Solr 1.4.0 vs 1.4.1
Afaik, there was a discussion about this recently (can't remember where). Lucene and its sub projects used to set the version number in build.xml to the release number but this has been changed to the current dev version. simon On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Jeff Newburn wrote: > The distribution seems to have precompiled 1.4.0 files from Nov 6th but when > the project is build with ant dist it kicks out jars/wars with 1.4.1-dev. > Is this what we are expecting since there is no mention in the CHANGES.txt > file. > -- > Jeff Newburn > Software Engineer, Zappos.com > jnewb...@zappos.com - 702-943-7562 > >
Re: [VOTE] graduate Solr to Lucene subproject
Fingers crossed!!! simon On 1/12/07, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The Lucene PMC has voted to accept Solr, and I've called a vote in the Incubator. If you have a binding vote there, please vote! -Yonik On 1/8/07, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This vote has passed, and I've just called for a vote within the Lucene PMC. > -Yonik > > On 1/4/07, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's time that Solr graduate from the incubator and become an official > > Lucene subproject. > > > > So, please cast your votes: > > > > [ ] +1 ask Lucene PMC and the Incubator PMC to graduate Solr from the > > Incubator to become a Lucene subproject. > > [ ] 0 Don't care > > [ ] -1 Not at this time, stay in the Incubator for now.
Re: [VOTE] graduate Solr to Lucene subproject
+1 simon On 1/5/07, Bill Au <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 Bill On 1/5/07, Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 > > Otis > > - Original Message > From: Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2007 3:29:36 PM > Subject: [VOTE] graduate Solr to Lucene subproject > > It's time that Solr graduate from the incubator and become an official > Lucene subproject. > > So, please cast your votes: > > [ ] +1 ask Lucene PMC and the Incubator PMC to graduate Solr from the > Incubator to become a Lucene subproject. > [ ] 0 Don't care > [ ] -1 Not at this time, stay in the Incubator for now. > > > -Yonik > > > >
Re: "correct" format for the md5 files?
Oh by the way I do have 2 people in this room being able to find collisions to md5 within the next 15 minutes. But it is true that this is quiet hypothetical . anyway... yours simon On 12/8/06, Simon Willnauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: True, so do it proper if you can. best regards simon On 12/8/06, WHIRLYCOTT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This isn't as urgent as you make it out to be. There are just a few > people in the world, mostly Chinese researchers, who have the > capability to do this. I agree that SHA is better, but this clearly > isn't the type of thing that should hold up a Solr release! > > phil. > > On Dec 8, 2006, at 4:37 PM, Simon Willnauer wrote: > > > Hello, > > I'm wondering why people still use MD5 for digital signatures and / or > > checksums. > > Recent results on the analysis of MD5 reduce the effort to find > > collisions to a few minutes on an old notebook. Thus, collision and > > multi-collision attacks on MD5 are feasible and practical. > > I would recommend to migrate directly from MD5 to SHA-2 and add SHA-2 > > hashes to existing MD5 lists if possible. Wherever MD5 is still used > > to detect the manipulation of > > data or software, it must be replaced as soon as possible! > > > > just my 2 cent. > > > > best regards simon > > > > On 12/8/06, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 12/8/06, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > ...but it got me wondering, what format do we want?... > >> > >> The format that Yonik used works (on my macosx system, but also under > >> Linux I suspect) with > >> > >> md5sum -c apache-solr-1.1.0-incubating.tgz.md5 > >> > >> which is convenient I think. > >> > >> -Bertrand > >> > > > -- > Whirlycott > Philip Jacob > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.whirlycott.com/phil/ > > >
Re: "correct" format for the md5 files?
True, so do it proper if you can. best regards simon On 12/8/06, WHIRLYCOTT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This isn't as urgent as you make it out to be. There are just a few people in the world, mostly Chinese researchers, who have the capability to do this. I agree that SHA is better, but this clearly isn't the type of thing that should hold up a Solr release! phil. On Dec 8, 2006, at 4:37 PM, Simon Willnauer wrote: > Hello, > I'm wondering why people still use MD5 for digital signatures and / or > checksums. > Recent results on the analysis of MD5 reduce the effort to find > collisions to a few minutes on an old notebook. Thus, collision and > multi-collision attacks on MD5 are feasible and practical. > I would recommend to migrate directly from MD5 to SHA-2 and add SHA-2 > hashes to existing MD5 lists if possible. Wherever MD5 is still used > to detect the manipulation of > data or software, it must be replaced as soon as possible! > > just my 2 cent. > > best regards simon > > On 12/8/06, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 12/8/06, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > ...but it got me wondering, what format do we want?... >> >> The format that Yonik used works (on my macosx system, but also under >> Linux I suspect) with >> >> md5sum -c apache-solr-1.1.0-incubating.tgz.md5 >> >> which is convenient I think. >> >> -Bertrand >> -- Whirlycott Philip Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.whirlycott.com/phil/
Re: "correct" format for the md5 files?
Hello, I'm wondering why people still use MD5 for digital signatures and / or checksums. Recent results on the analysis of MD5 reduce the effort to find collisions to a few minutes on an old notebook. Thus, collision and multi-collision attacks on MD5 are feasible and practical. I would recommend to migrate directly from MD5 to SHA-2 and add SHA-2 hashes to existing MD5 lists if possible. Wherever MD5 is still used to detect the manipulation of data or software, it must be replaced as soon as possible! just my 2 cent. best regards simon On 12/8/06, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 12/8/06, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...but it got me wondering, what format do we want?... The format that Yonik used works (on my macosx system, but also under Linux I suspect) with md5sum -c apache-solr-1.1.0-incubating.tgz.md5 which is convenient I think. -Bertrand
Solr NightlyBuild
Hey, the Solr NightlyBuild gives me a very hard time to convince my boss to use Solr at all for many reasons. I guess I can not expect any tags, branches or releases within the next week, right?! Is there any point why no "stable" / release version is available at the moment? best regards Simon
Re: Solr on Lucene home page?
+1 On 9/12/06, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Should Solr have a tab on Lucene's home page? Other incubating Lucene-related projects do. I think it would be appropriate. Doug
