On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:36 -0400, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar 17, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
patches welcome!
Sometimes you have to slash and burn to clean out the old under brush.
My patch would simply excise forrest and the website. Then, reveling
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
Lucene Artifacts...
* ant javadocs fails because javadocs-all can't find prettify...
BUILD FAILED
/home/hossman/tmp/lucene3.1rc/3.1.rc1/l-src-tgz/lucene-3.1.0/build.xml:206:
The following error occurred
On 3/18/2011 at 7:37 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
I don't like that the lucene build from the source release is broken.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2973 fixes it by including
dev-tools (and everything else except solr/)
we can't let the official build depend on dev-tools.
Why not?
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Steven A Rowe sar...@syr.edu wrote:
On 3/18/2011 at 7:37 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
I don't like that the lucene build from the source release is broken.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2973 fixes it by including
dev-tools (and everything else except
On Mar 17, 2011, at 11:36 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
On Mar 17, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
patches welcome!
Sometimes you have to slash and burn to clean out the old under brush.
My patch would simply excise forrest and the website. Then, reveling in the
success of that
On Mar 17, 2011, at 11:05 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: The source is because I *think* we are required by the ASF to have
yes. we are.
Two thoughts on src distribution:
Linux distributions, such as RedHat Debian, have a policy of building from
pristine source. They want the official
On Mar 18, 2011, at 10:00 AM, DM Smith wrote:
On Mar 17, 2011, at 11:05 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: The source is because I *think* we are required by the ASF to have
yes. we are.
Two thoughts on src distribution:
Linux distributions, such as RedHat Debian, have a policy of
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: I spent this morning reviewing the Solr tgz artifacts (will look at hte
: lucene ones after lunch). Notes so far...
Lucene Artifacts...
# General concerns
As mentioned before, there are a bunch
: We gotta figure out how to deal with this one, I don't like that the
: lucene build from the source release is broken.
At hte risk of sounding like a broken record: this type of problem would
go away if we only had one source release, rooted at dev
-Hoss
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Yonik Seeley wrote:
: Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:36:33 -0400
: From: Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com
: To: Chris Hostetter hossman_luc...@fucit.org
: Cc: Lucene Dev dev@lucene.apache.org
: Subject: Re: Lucene Solr 3.1 RC1
:
: On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Chris
FYI, the placeholder for the CMS site is:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/cms/
You can simply check in there and you will see updates in the staging area.
On Mar 18, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Upayavira wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:36 -0400, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com
wrote:
On
: This is just to make it easier for everyone to review the current
: state of the packages (there were a lot of minor fixups since RC0)
: and identify any other blockers.
I spent this morning reviewing the Solr tgz artifacts (will look at hte
lucene ones after lunch). Notes so far...
On Mar 17, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
* CHANGES.txt says we are using Tika 0.8-SNAPSHOT and UIMA 2.3.1-SNAPSHOT,
but when i look at the actual jars there is no indication that these are
snapshots...
It should be TIKA-0.8.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
[javadoc]
/home/hossman/tmp/lucene3.1rc/3.1.rc1/s-src-tgz/apache-solr-3.1.0/solr/src/java/org/apache/solr/schema/IndexSchema.java:105:
warning - Tag @link: can't find IndexSchema(SolrConfig, String,
InputStream)
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
%% diff -r s-bin-tgz/apache-solr-3.1.0/ s-src-tgz/apache-solr-3.1.0/solr/
Binary files
s-bin-tgz/apache-solr-3.1.0/contrib/analysis-extras/lucene-libs/lucene-icu-3.1.0.jar
and
: I spent this morning reviewing the Solr tgz artifacts (will look at hte
: lucene ones after lunch). Notes so far...
Lucene Artifacts...
# General concerns
As mentioned before, there are a bunch of files only included in the src
release that seem suspicious -- they should
: * nothing in README or ant -p about how to build the non-javadocs (ie:
: tutorial)
we could add a one liner about this to the README.txt...
Run the forrest command in the src/site directory to build the tutorial
...but the more i think about it the more i'm convinced that we should
IMO, I think our source release should be what you get when you do a
checkout from SVN.
Building from source is more expert level, and one needs (minimally) ant set up.
If I do another RC, I'm half-way convinced I should just do an svn
export and tar it up. No .zip... anyone handling a source
: IMO, I think our source release should be what you get when you do a
: checkout from SVN.
: Building from source is more expert level, and one needs (minimally) ant set
up.
meh. i don't really disagree with you, this is one of hte points i was
trying to make about wondering why we had two
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
by thta same rationale, we don't need to include javadocs in any release,
because you could always find them online (and if i wanted to be snarky:
you could always go find the java source itself online too)
On Mar 17, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
by thta same rationale, we don't need to include javadocs in any release,
because you could always find them online (and if i wanted to be snarky:
you could always go find the java source itself online too)
I'm tempted to +1 both those
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
* CHANGES.txt has a 1.4.2-dev section listing bug fixes ... as if that
were a release after 1.4.1 and before the current 3.1 release.
A 1.4.2 release in development, yes. That's the earliest point that
the bug was
: The source is because I *think* we are required by the ASF to have
yes. we are.
: source for a release (but we can have as many other artifacts as we
: want to). Otherwise I'd say yeah, dump the source release, use svn.
: Providing source releases as opposed to git or svn URLs is getting
:
: one form to the other - but please, oh please, can we stop distributing
: the website in the release. Including the PDF's of the website. This is
: a pain in the ass to have to update and then include in the release as
: an RM - it's not worth its weight IMO. Disengage from Forrest ...
:
On Mar 17, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
patches welcome!
Sometimes you have to slash and burn to clean out the old under brush.
My patch would simply excise forrest and the website. Then, reveling in the
success of that great improvement, I'd sit back, take stalk and see what
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: A 1.4.2 release in development, yes. That's the earliest point that
: the bug was fixed, and someone
: upgrading from 1.4.1 should look at everything after the 1.4.1 release.
that makes no sense to me. even
26 matches
Mail list logo
