Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.2.1 RC2

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Adrien Grand wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Mark Miller wrote: >> Is that a +1 ? :) > > That's a good question. I didn't want to +1 in order to make the > counting easier since I have no binding vote (not being in Lucene > PMC). Or does Lucene allow an

Re: Welcome Adrien Grand to the PMC

welcome! :) On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Robert Muir wrote: > Welcome! > > On Mar 28, 2013 7:16 PM, "Steve Rowe" wrote: >> >> I'm pleased to announce that Adrien Grand has accepted the PMC's >> invitation to join. >> >> Welcome Adrien! >> >> - Steve >> ---

Re: New JIRA tagging Commit Bot

+1 thanks mark On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > I'm experimenting with an event driven commit bot today. It should mean > much lower latency for tagging, and less room for accidentally tagging old > commits. If today goes well, I'll look at setting things up on a more > perma

Re: Welcome Shalin Shekhar Mangar to the PMC

welcome On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Koji Sekiguchi wrote: > Welcome Shalin! > > koji > > > (13/04/05 3:24), Steve Rowe wrote: >> >> I'm pleased to announce that Shalin Shekhar Mangar has accepted the PMC's >> invitation to join. >> >> Welcome Shalin! >> >> - Steve >>

Re: Possible problem with RAMDirectory; tips please

I think david is just running into a situation were his test fail sometimes with random seeds but always if he forces RAMDirectory no matter what seed. He is asking for advice if there are any traps with ram dir in randomized testing... maybe that helps @David S.: why don't you paste a patch that

Re: 4.3

Folks, I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.3 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/ I will update the 4.x branch now and build the first RC simon On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Robert Muir wrote: > 4.3 is looking good already. If nobody has spun a r

Re: 4.3

ks, then less than a week later you say, I'm > rolling now? Can't we at least have a day or two notice to wrap? > > - Mark > > On Apr 17, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Simon Willnauer > wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr 4.

Re: 4.3

dude you had 12 days since rob send the note to the list. what are you talking about? On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > > On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Simon Willnauer > wrote: > > > honestly I don't think we should push in last minute changes by s

Re: 4.3

. I > > doubt he wants to do shoving, instead I think these activities > contribute to > > a quality release. > > > > So i'd recommend just keeping the release branch as is, give a few more > days > > for additional bugfixes/docs/tests, but restrict the branc

Re: 4.3

ention. thanks, simon On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Jack Krupansky wrote: > 4.3... are we there yet? How much longer?! > > -- Jack Krupansky > > -Original Message- From: Otis Gospodnetic > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:43 PM > To: dev@lucene.apache.org ; Simon Wi

Re: 4.3

ous bug the vote fails. everything else will be in a subsequent release. simon > > -- Jack Krupansky > > -Original Message- From: Otis Gospodnetic > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:43 PM > To: dev@lucene.apache.org ; Simon Willnauer > Subject: Re: 4.3 > > Thin

Re: 4.3

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > > On Apr 17, 2013, at 1:26 PM, Simon Willnauer > wrote: > > > here is my family hand holding. (btw. I think the analogy is bogus but > that is my personal opinion and I stated my points here) > > > > I will u

Re: [JENKINS] Lucene-Solr-trunk-Linux (32bit/jdk1.7.0_17) - Build # 5212 - Failure!

@rob you can add the fix too if you want that is fine I will roll another release anyways simon On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > I'll open an issue. We should at least fix the test for 4.3 if possible > (the indexsearcher change can wait) > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 9:19

Re: [JENKINS] Lucene-Solr-trunk-Linux (32bit/jdk1.7.0_17) - Build # 5212 - Failure!

3:24 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > > cool, i opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4938 > > > > We should still have explicit tests for this, and there is still the > mystery > > of how this test ever passed at all! > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 201

Re: svn commit: r1469040 - /lucene/dev/branches/branch_4x/dev-tools/scripts/buildAndPushRelease.py

WOOT On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 9:33 PM, wrote: > Author: mikemccand > Date: Wed Apr 17 19:33:48 2013 > New Revision: 1469040 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1469040 > Log: > prompt for GPG password up front > > Modified: > lucene/dev/branches/branch_4x/dev-tools/scripts/buildAndPushRelease.py

ReleaseNotes 4.3

I started with the lucene release notes here: http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseNote43 please feel free to add to is as needed! aside of this I'd really appreciate some help with the solr part, mark can you help with that? simon

Re: [JENKINS] Lucene-Solr-Tests-4.x-java7 - Build # 1164 - Still Failing

this is a test bug... I will commit a fix in a bit On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Apache Jenkins Server < jenk...@builds.apache.org> wrote: > Build: https://builds.apache.org/job/Lucene-Solr-Tests-4.x-java7/1164/ > > 1 tests failed. > FAILED: org.apache.lucene.search.join.TestBlockJoin.testEm

[VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.3 RC1

http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.3.0-RC1-rev1469340/ Thanks everybody for the hard work! Smoke tester says: SUCCESS! Integration into ES is successful! there is my +1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-uns

Re: 4.3

. I never said "fuck you and your objections" my $0.05 simon On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Steve Rowe wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Apr 17, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Simon Willnauer > wrote: >> the warning has been given 6 days ago. I am just answering the rough tone >

Re: 4.3

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Steve Rowe wrote: > On Apr 19, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Simon Willnauer > wrote: > > Steve, > > > > I didn't put a "we're releasing now bomb" in, I said: > > > > "I started a release branch for Lucene / Solr

Re: 4.3

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Steve Rowe wrote: > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:03 PM, Simon Willnauer > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Steve Rowe wrote: > > > >> On Apr 19, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Simon Willnauer > wrote: > >> > I didn'

Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.3 RC1

ah man, good call! that is my fault. I know what went wrong here. Damned! ok that means I need to respin that one. This might take a while on my end. sorry about that. simon On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote: > > : > http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-s

Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.3 RC1

@uwe sure! On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > Can we fix changes.txt before that? > > Uwe > > > > Simon Willnauer schrieb: > >> ah man, good call! that is my fault. I know what went wrong here. Damned! >> >> ok that means I

Re: 4.3

; On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Simon Willnauer > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Steve Rowe wrote: > >> On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:03 PM, Simon Willnauer > wrote: > >>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Steve Rowe wrote: > >>> > >>&

Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.3 RC1

thanks uwe... let me know I will run a new RC once you are done On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > Will fix soon! > > > Uwe > > > > Simon Willnauer schrieb: >> >> @uwe sure! >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:48 P

Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.3 RC1

; Uwe Schindler > > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > > http://www.thetaphi.de > > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > > From: Simon Willnauer [mailto:simon.willna...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:24 PM > To: dev@lucene.apache.org > > > Subjec

Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.3 RC1

Hmm @hoss did you check this manually, I mean the revision? I think our smoketester should check the revision of the release branch and the revision of the RC to make sure this doesn't happen? simon On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Simon Willnauer wrote: > thanks uwe... I started

"[VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.3 Take 2 (RC2)"

Here is the RC: http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.3.0-RC2-rev1470054 happy voting... here is my +1 simon

Re: "[VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.3 Take 2 (RC2)"

. I > assume smokeTestRelease.py works only on the downloaded RC, and does not > depend on my local checkout of 4x? Because I wasn't on the latest revision. > > I'll 'svn up' and run smokeTest again, but would be good if anyone else > tries to reproduce. > > S

Re: "[VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.3 Take 2 (RC2)"

I just ported this test-fix to the 4_3 branch in rev 1470112. Yet, I don't think we really need a new RC for this unless somebody objects. simon On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote: > that is a test-bug I fixed in trunk and branch_4x > (http://svn.apache.o

Re: "[VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.3 Take 2 (RC2)"

ssfully, so I'm thinking that something is broken in new release. > I'll try examine tomorrow what is broken. > > > Regards, > Karol > > W dniu 20.04.2013 21:07, Andi Vajda pisze: > >> >> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013, Simon Willnauer wrote: >> >>>

Re: "[VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.3 Take 2 (RC2)"

>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> hi, >>>>> >>>>> I extracted minimal failing example, solr configs(schema, >>>>> solrconfig.xml) and data are in attached archive. >>>>> I try to import simple document: >>>>

Re: "[VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.3 Take 2 (RC2)"

Yonik, can you fix this in the near future? I mean how much time do you need? On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Simon Willnauer > wrote: >> I think we can add this to 4.3 I can roll another RC for that. > > Someone jus

Re: "[VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.3 Take 2 (RC2)"

hing can be important enough to respin a release >> candidate for, but not important in the sense no one cares if its unit tests >> are really working. >> >> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Simon Willnauer >> wrote: >> I think we can add this to 4.3 I can r

Re: "[VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.3 Take 2 (RC2)"

I hear ya robert! On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Simon Willnauer > wrote: >> >> >> my take on this more community oriented. I really want to encourage >> folks to test our releases. Its a lot of wor

Re: "[VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.3 Take 2 (RC2)"

building an RC3 off SVN rev: 1470541 now simon On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Steve Rowe wrote: > On Apr 22, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Simon Willnauer > wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steve Rowe wrote: >>> I just committed the edge-ngrams fix on the 4.3 release b

[VOTE] Lucene Solr 4.3.0 RC3

Here is a new RC candidate... http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.3.0-RC3-rev1470846/ here is my +1 thanks for voting... simon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional

Re: [JENKINS] Lucene-Solr-NightlyTests-trunk - Build # 245 - Still Failing

this looks pretty serious! any chance we can get this index? On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Apache Jenkins Server wrote: > Build: https://builds.apache.org/job/Lucene-Solr-NightlyTests-trunk/245/ > > 1 tests failed. > REGRESSION: org.apache.lucene.index.TestIndexWriterOnJRECrash.testNRTThreads

Re: [JENKINS] Lucene-Solr-NightlyTests-trunk - Build # 245 - Still Failing

orrupt... > > So the good news is this test now discovers the issue (it did not before) > ... but we need to fix this test to make an exception for the first commit > ... I'll do that. > > > Mike McCandless > > http://blog.mikemccandless.com > > > On Thu, Apr 25,

Re: [VOTE] Lucene Solr 4.3.0 RC3

ved from the war, in favor of putting them in the classpath. But I see > slf4j jars in the maven war file, but not in the tgz war file. > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Mark Miller wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> - Mark >> >> On Apr 23, 2013, at

Re: [VOTE] Lucene Solr 4.3.0 RC3

I really love how you can reply without telling if we still have a problem or not :D simon On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Robert Muir wrote: >> I would try to help fix it: but its not clear to me which 'package' is >> correct or what happ

Re: [VOTE] Lucene Solr 4.3.0 RC3

Thanks guys, I will re-spin once I have a better inet connection simon On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > Steve also seems to have committed the logging improvement. Simon, this > should all be resolved. > > Thanks, > > - Mark > > On Apr 26, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Mark Miller w

[VOTE] Lucene / Solr 4.3 RC4

ok guys here is my +1 for TAKE 4 !! http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.3.0-RC4-rev1477023/ sorry for the delay & happy voting simon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additi

Re: [VOTE] Lucene / Solr 4.3 RC4

This vote has passed. Has anybody a copy of http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo/ around otherwise I need to wait until this is up again :) simon On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Martijn v Groningen wrote: > +1 Smoke tester passed. > > > On 30 April 2013 20:38, Steve Rowe wrote: >> >>

Re: [VOTE] Lucene / Solr 4.3 RC4

nevermind - google cache is your friend... On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote: > This vote has passed. Has anybody a copy of > http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo/ around otherwise I > need to wait until this is up again :) > > simon > > On Wed

Re: BytesRef comparable

+1 sounds good On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Shai Erera wrote: > +1 > > Shai > > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > >> When we do the refactoring in flex to remove the comparator, this would be >> the first that comes to my mind. >> >> +1 >> >> - >> Uwe Schindler >>

Speakers and Schedule for Berlin Buzzwords 2010 - Search, Store and Scale 7th/8th 2010

Hi folks, Today we proudly present the Berlin Buzzwords talks and presentations. As promised there are tracks specific to the three tags search, store and scale. We have a fantastic mixture of developers and users of open source software projects that make scaling data processing today possible.

Re: questions on CommonsHttpSolrServer and MultiThreadedHttpConnectionManager

Hey there, check out Ryans link for explanation of your TooManyOpenFiles problem. For the query time, make sure the Nagle alg is disabled - should be by default though. MultiThreadedHttpConnectionManager mgr = new MultiThreadedHttpConnectionManager(); mgr.getParams().setTcpNoDelay(true) You shou

Re: Welcome Andrzej Bialecki as Lucene/Solr committer

Welcome Andrzej! simon On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > Welcome Andrzej! I am glad to have you finally on the Team :-) > > - > Uwe Schindler > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > http://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > >> -Original Message- >>

Re: Solr updateRequestHandler and performance vs. atomicity

Hi Karl, what are you describing seems to be a good usecase for something like a message queue where you push a document or record to a queue which guarantees the queues persistence. I look at this from a little different perspective, in a distributed environment you would have to guarantee delive

Re: SolrCloud integration roadmap

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 6:03 PM, olivier sallou wrote: > Hi, > I'd like to know when SolrCloud feature will be released in Solr ? I saw a > Jira track about this to integrate in trunk but I cannot see related > roadmap. The patch might be integrated into trunk shortly I assume - a release isn't th

Re: SolrCloud integration roadmap

virtual servers to test. > > Olivier > > 2010/5/30 Simon Willnauer >> >> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 6:03 PM, olivier sallou >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > I'd like to know when SolrCloud feature will be released in Solr ? I saw >> > a >> >

Re: lucene-dev.jar vs lucene-SNAPSHOT.jar

Can't you simply build it with ant -Ddev.version=4.0-SNAPSHOT that should build a jar with the corresponding artifacts. simon On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: > (hoping to avoid an anti-maven flame war) > > I'm looking at getting the ant tasks to play nice with maven again. >

Re: lucene-dev.jar vs lucene-SNAPSHOT.jar

t; > ryan > > > > On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Simon Willnauer > wrote: >> Can't you simply build it with ant -Ddev.version=4.0-SNAPSHOT >> that should build a jar with the corresponding artifacts. >> >> simon >> >> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 a

Re: Solr spewage and dropped documents, while indexing

Karl, the HTTP error lines are produced by your code right?! Can you provide what has been returned by Solr? If that would be related to any server side problem described above like no sockets or so you would not see a 400! I could also imagine that the documents you are sending are empty - is that

Re: Branches for large patches?

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > +1 to option 2 - I like feature branches more than than an issue/patch > branch approach - large features often span many issues/patches. > > Option 2 can also really be a superset of option 1. +1 to option 2 - I guess we should start with mor

Re: Branches for large patches?

:) On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Michael Busch wrote: > OK cool.  I'll start the new realtime branch soon! > >  Michael > > On 6/10/10 9:30 AM, karl.wri...@nokia.com wrote: >> >> I technically can't vote, but if I could I would say +1 to option 2 as >> well. >> Karl >> >> -Original Message

Re: Build failed in Hudson: Lucene-trunk #1213

That seems to be caused by very high load on the hudson box - at least what this tickes is telling: http://issues.hudson-ci.org/browse/HUDSON-6531 simon On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Apache Hudson Server wrote: > See > > Ch

Re: Hudson build is back to normal : Lucene-trunk #1214

woohoo! hudson made it again :) - thanks uwe for restarting On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Apache Hudson Server wrote: > See > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-m

Re: Synchronized blocks?

Hi Edward, I don't think we should take any action on replacing all synchronized blocks with ReentrantLock. In my opinion synchronized should still be preferred to ReentrantLocks as intrinsic locks still have many advantages over explicit locks. If you don't need any features not provided by intri

Re: Repeat to the right list: Solr spewage and possible re-entrancy problem?

Hey Karl, the TIME_WAIT states you see are ok from the TCP perspective. The end that sends the first FIN goes into the TIME_WAIT state, because that is the end that sends the final ACK. If the other end's FIN is lost, or if the final ACK is lost, having the end that sends the first FIN maintain st

Re: Repeat to the right list: Solr spewage and possible re-entrancy problem?

 try >    { >        ... >    } >    finally >    { >      socket.close(); >    } > > So, if there's a close delay, it's got to be server-side. > > Karl > > > -Original Message- > From: ext Simon Willnauer [mailto:simon.willna...@googl

Re: maven - LUCENE-2490

>From my perspective functionality rules out convenience. I like the shorter -dev much better but agree with mark! +1 to make maven work better as long as I don't have to fiddle around with it ;) simon On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > On 6/15/10 3:52 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote

Re: Trouble updating Solr website

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > +1, die, forrest, die! +1 - while my mac runs java 5 :) simon > > > > - > > Uwe Schindler > > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > > http://www.thetaphi.de > > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > > From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com

Re: Build failed in Hudson: Lucene-trunk #1229

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Apache Hudson Server wrote: > See > > -- > [...truncated 3861 lines...] > clover.setup: > > clover.info: > > clover: > > compile-core: > > common.compile-test: >

Re: Welcome Robert Muir to the Lucene PMC

Congrats Robert! :) Its a pleasure! On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: > Congrats! > Erick > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Shai Erera wrote: >> >> Congratulations ! >> >> Shai >> >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: >>> >>> Congratulations! >>> >>>

Re: busywait hang using extracting update handler on trunk

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:56 AM, wrote: >>> > And can you run CheckIndex and post that output, and also the AIOOBE > you hit for certain searches? > << > > Where can I find CheckIndex? you find it in your lucene JAR java -cp lucene.jar -ea:org.apache.lucene... org.apache.lucene.index.Che

Re: Combined Lucene/Solr Issues

>> I think I would prefer to just be able to refer to Lucene issues from time >> to time in Solr's CHANGES.txt file and obviously, the patch would contain >> the fix across the source. Thoughts? I would appreciate creating two issues and use one only for reference and link it by the one which c

Re: Combined Lucene/Solr Issues

> Worst case scenerio: if it starts out as a SOLR issue and then the scope > gets bigger, creating a new LUCENE issue to track it (and linking the two) > seems trivial to me. Thanks hoss for expressing what i tried to do :) That all makes perfect sense! simon On 8/19/10, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

Re: Build failed in Hudson: Lucene-trunk #1274

Seems like a clover problem - first unittest run was successful though. On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Apache Hudson Server wrote: > See > > Changes: > > [rmuir] LUCENE-2629: fix analysis/icu's gennorm2 task > > [rmuir] LUCENE-262

Re: Trunk file handle leak?

Karl, this does not seem to be a leaking file handle problem. What you are seeing when you do a ls -1 | wc is you index after the failed merge. A single merge exception does not mean that all concurrently running merges failed. There might have been more than 1024 open files during that time but j

Re: IndexReader Cache - a different angle

Hi Shai, On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Shai Erera wrote: > Hi > > Lucene's Caches have been heavilydiscussed before (e.g., LUCENE-831, > LUCENE-2133 and LUCENE-2394) and from what I can tell, there have been > many proposals to attack this problem, w/ no developed solution. I didn't go throug

Re: IndexReader Cache - a different angle

ches for now. We are not aiming to provide a whole full fledged Cache API but the infrastructure to make it easier to build those on a app basis which would be a valuable improvement. We should also look at Solr's cache implementations and how they could benefit from this efforts since Solr uses

Re: IndexReader Cache - a different angle

"random access" (such as being cached), LUCENE-1536 -- > flex actually makes this relatively easy now, since the postings API > no longer implicitly filters deleted docs (ie you provide your own > skipDocs) -- but these hooks won't fix that right? > > Mike > >

Re: Now, a lost data problem with trunk too

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:37 AM, wrote: > Hi folks, > > It looks like the handle leak may be real - Simon Willnauer has been looking > at it and could not find an explanation for the behavior I have been seeing.   > But before we got too far on that problem, I encountered wha

Re: Fwd: Trunk file handle leak?

An update on this, the error was on my side doubly incrementing the searcher reference. no problem on trunk! simon On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Simon Rosenthal wrote: > Karl: > > I reported something very similar a few months back and opened a Jira issue > - see https://issues.apache.org/ji

Re: Whither ORP?

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Dan Cardin wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> This is a great start! I am interested in helping with the development of a >> crowd sourcing application. The next step would be creating a set of >> requirements for the w

Re: Build failed in Hudson: Lucene-3.x #116

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Michael McCandless wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > >> I wonder if now that we vary these in the tests anyway, if we should >> consider commenting out the Localized/MultiCodec runners? >> >> We could keep them available (but not used

Re: discussion about release frequency.

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > Helau! LOL - that made my day uwe :D > > (means +1) same here! +1 > > - > Uwe Schindler > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > http://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Lance Norskog [

Re: Build failed in Hudson: Lucene-trunk #1291

This still failes because of JUnit / Clover treats each local run as a single test method. I will open an issue to fix that. simon On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Apache Hudson Server wrote: > See > > Changes: > > [mikemccand] fix

Re: Build failed in Hudson: Lucene-3.x #116

uture maybe we could make this functionality easily triggerable with > a -D, in case you want to run a test class/method/entire test suite under > all Locales/Codecs > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Simon Willnauer > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Michael

Re: Hudson build is back to normal : Lucene-trunk #1292

Phew! Back to normal woohoo. On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Apache Hudson Server wrote: > See > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.or

Re: Solr 3.1

Jason, generally you might wanna send mails to d...@lucene... not solr-dev since we merged. On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Jason Rutherglen wrote: > I'm a little bit confused about the difference between the Lucene/Solr > 3.x branch and Lucene/Solr trunk.  Is there a page on the Lucene > Apac

Re: [VOTE] rename -dev.jar files to -SNAPSHOT.jar for better maven support

[x ] Rename 3.x and 4.x to -SNAPSHOT.jar On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Grant Ingersoll > wrote: >> >> We make no guarantees about snapshot builds anyway.  They are not official >> releases and are for developer convenience. > > exactl

Re: Site Redesign contest?

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Ryan McKinley wrote: >> >> Apache Shiro had good success using http://99designs.com/ >> >> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-shiro-user/201005.mbox/%3caanlktilckevd1l5ka0zmnthi2vsrwj-mz

Re: Build failed in Hudson: Lucene-trunk #1313

[junit] # [junit] # An unexpected error has been detected by HotSpot Virtual Machine: [junit] # [junit] # SIGSEGV (0xb) at pc=0x0008010c22f2, pid=21897, tid=0xc08ec0 [junit] # [junit] # Java VM: Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (1.5.0_16-p9-root_01_oct_2010_23_12 mixed

Re: Build failed in Hudson: Lucene-trunk #1313

have old > versions of both 1.6.0_openjdk(unknown bugfixlevel) and 1.5.0_16. Thanks for clarifying uwe! simon > > - > Uwe Schindler > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > http://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > >> -Original Message- >

Re: Welcome Tomoko Uchida as Lucene/Solr committer

Awesome! Welcome to this group as a committer! It’s always special to grow a committer base! Simon > On 9. Apr 2019, at 06:00, Tomás Fernández Löbbe wrote: > > Welcome! > >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 5:27 PM Christian Moen wrote: >> Congratulations, Tomoko-san! >> >>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 12

Re: [DISCUSS] Lucene-Solr split (Solr promoted to TLP)

I can speak from experience that working with a snapshot is much cleaner than working with submodules. We do this in elasticsearch for a very long time now and our process here works just fine. It has a bunch of advantages over a direct / source dependency like solr has right now. I recall that som

Re: [DISCUSS] Lucene-Solr split (Solr promoted to TLP)

On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 3:41 PM Bram Van Dam wrote: > > On 10/05/2020 08:20, David Smiley wrote: > > An idea just occurred to me that may help make a split nicer for Solr > > than it is today. Solr could use a branch of the Lucene project that's > > used for the Solr project. > > Maybe I'm alone

Re: [VOTE] Solr to become a top-level Apache project (TLP)

+1 binding Sent from a mobile device > On 12. May 2020, at 13:33, Jason Gerlowski wrote: > > -1 (binding) > >> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 7:31 AM Alan Woodward wrote: >> >> +1 (binding) >> >> Alan Woodward >> On 12 May 2020, at 12:06, Jan Høydahl wrote: >>> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>>

Re: [VOTE] Solr to become a top-level Apache project (TLP)

I agree this is not a code change category vote. It’s a majority vote. -1s are not vetos. Simon > On 12. May 2020, at 21:17, Atri Sharma wrote: > >  > I would argue against that — this is more of a project level decision with no > changes to the core code base per se — more of restructuring

Re: Lots of failures lately for lucene.index.TestBackwardsCompatability.testAllVersionsTested

I thinks it’s fixed now. The 7.7.3 version was missing. Simon > On 16. May 2020, at 22:45, Erick Erickson wrote: > > Unfortunately the seed doesn’t reproduce, and I tried beasting it without > getting any fails in 700 iterations (and counting). > > Here’s one example, I see three others in

Re: [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-8609) Allow getting consistent docstats from IndexWriter

gt; Allow getting consistent docstats from IndexWriter >> -- >> >>Key: LUCENE-8609 >>URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8609 >>Project: Lucene - Core >> Issue Type: Improvement >> Affects

Re: Lucene/Solr 8.6.2 bugfix release

+1 thank you! I was about to write the same email. Lets sync on the RM I can certainly help... I need to go and find my code signing key first :) simon On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 7:49 AM Ignacio Vera wrote: > > Hi, > > I propose a 8.6.2 bugfix release and I volunteer as RM. The motivation for > th

Re: Lucene/Solr 8.6.2 bugfix release

I'd actually like to build the RC earlier than the end of the week. Unless somebody objects I'd like to build one tonight or tomorrow. simon On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 7:52 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya wrote: > > Thanks Simon and Ignacio! > > On Tue, 25 Aug, 2020, 11:21 am Simo

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 8.6.2 RC1

+1 binding release looks good to me On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:58 PM Atri Sharma wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > SUCCESS! [1:14:17.24939] > > On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 18:41, Michael Sokolov wrote: >> >> SUCCESS! [0:56:28.589654] >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:41 PM Nhat Nguyen >>

Re: [VOTE] Lucene logo contest, third time's a charm

A1, A2, D (binding) On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 7:09 AM Noble Paul wrote: > A1, A2, D binding > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 7:22 AM Jason Gerlowski > wrote: > > > > A1, A2, D (binding) > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 10:47 AM Michael McCandless > > wrote: > > > > > > A2, A1, C5, D (binding) > > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Lucene logo contest, third time's a charm

Thank you ryan for pushing on this, being persistent and getting the vote out. On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 5:55 PM Ryan Ernst wrote: > This vote is now closed. The results are as follows: > > Binding Results > A1: 12 (55%) > D: 6 (27%) > A2: 4 (18%) > > All Results > A1: 16 (55%) > D: 7 (

Re: Old programmers do fade away

Eric, thanks so much for your open and true words! You will always be part of this community if you subscribed to the lists or not. (you can't escape :D) Thanks for your contributions, this is a team effort and you are a part of it. enjoy the welding!! simon On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 3:09 PM Erick

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >