Congratulations Jan!
Danilo Tomasoni
Fondazione The Microsoft Research - University of Trento Centre for
Computational and Systems Biology (COSBI)
Piazza Manifattura 1, 38068 Rovereto (TN), Italy
Ravi Kumar
8:23 PM (1 minute ago)
to solr-user
Hi Team,
I was implementing block join faceting query in my project and was stuck in
integrating the existing functional queries in the block join faceting
query.
*The current query using 'select' handler is as follows* :-
This seems like a scary approach, why must deprecations be all removed at
once? And why rush doing this for some specific date? No need to create
bugs like this.
Why not make separate issues to handle each deprecation carefully.
By the way, I feel this approach is a losing battle IMO anyway,
I look forward to a standardization on *something* but would prefer that we
not make a sweeping change like this until after Mark's "ref branch" is
reconciled. I don't want that to hang over the project indefinitely, but
we can wait; we've not had this standardization yet for many years, after
Ah; that makes total sense; thanks.
~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 12:06 PM Ilan Ginzburg wrote:
> Searching in my jenkins folder for failures of this test (label:jenkins
> "FAILED:
There are two linked issues pertaining to the removal of deprecations for
9.0:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8638
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13138
and a branch where this work has been done:
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/tree/master-deprecations
I'm just
FWIW, I'm not really in favor of the convention Lucene adopted. I probably
lost track of the debate and failed to object which is on me, but I guess
it was because that was the lower number of changes there? It's
certainly much less legible in the IDE to have a wall of classes all
starting with T.
I have fixed the issue. A PR is out
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/2410/files.
Most of the work was documenting what stats are actually returned. Now
OverseerStatusCmd has more comment lines than code lines.
Will merge it shortly.
Ilan
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 6:05 PM Ilan Ginzburg
Sure I can do that. Was going to file an issue and link. I think adding a
link sends a mail to the linked issue, but I could be wrong.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 11:57 AM David Smiley wrote:
> Makes sense. I see you haven't commented on the issue about this; I
> prefer that tactic as it gets
Searching in my jenkins folder for failures of this test (label:jenkins
"FAILED: org.apache.solr.cloud.OverseerStatusTest.test") 26 emails match.
Searching for all jenkins master builds emails since the first failure
email found above (2 days ago), I see 40 messages.
26 over 40 is not far from
Makes sense to me.
> On Feb 20, 2021, at 2:42 PM, Marcus Eagan wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Now that Lucene’s standardization is complete and I believe enforced, should
> we discuss if we could bring the same consistency to Solr?
>
> Best,
>
> Marcus
> --
> Marcus Eagan
>
Makes sense. I see you haven't commented on the issue about this; I prefer
that tactic as it gets noticed by everyone "Watching" the original issue,
even if it's old.
~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 5:14 PM Gus
Yes Marcus this is the commit.
David I would have expected 50% failures, as 50% of the runs use
distributed updates. I’ll try to understand better as I fix the issue.
Ilan
On Sun 21 Feb 2021 at 06:17, David Smiley wrote:
> Interesting. Do you have a guess as to why the failures there are ~5%
13 matches
Mail list logo
