can someone from solr land comment on the SLF4j issue? I am not sure I
can make a decision if that should block a release.
thanks,
simon
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Ryan Ernst r...@iernst.net wrote:
-1
It seems SLF4j packaging is busted? I thought I remembered slf4j jars were
removed
i dont understand logging at all... needing 6 or 7 jars to
System.out.println is the most ridiculous thing in the world to me. So
someone else will have to comment about which one is right, the .tgz or
maven
but it seems totally broken for the war to have a bunch of extra jars in
maven that it
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
i dont understand logging at all... needing 6 or 7 jars to
System.out.println is the most ridiculous thing in the world to me. So
someone else will have to comment about which one is right, the .tgz or
maven
but it
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
i dont understand logging at all... needing 6 or 7 jars to
System.out.println is the most ridiculous thing in the world to me. So
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
I would try to help fix it: but its not clear to me which 'package' is
correct or what happened to logging at all in 4.3
Solr's CHANGES has a summary:
* Slf4j/logging jars are no longer included in the Solr webapp. All
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidworks.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
I would try to help fix it: but its not clear to me which 'package' is
correct or what happened to logging at all in 4.3
Solr's CHANGES has a
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 yo...@lucidworks.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
I would try to help fix it: but its not clear to me which
It's a Maven problem as far as I'm concerned, and committers don't need to
worry about Maven last we discussed, just the ones interested in Maven. So
unless a Maven guy wants to address this, I'd say we are good to go!
I'd prefer Maven was downstream myself ;)
Everything else is as expected.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Simon Willnauer
simon.willna...@gmail.com wrote:
I really love how you can reply without telling if we still have a
problem or not :D
I was responding to the what happened to logging at all in 4.3.
As to which WAR is correct, it's answered in the *first
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidworks.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Simon Willnauer
simon.willna...@gmail.com wrote:
I really love how you can reply without telling if we still have a
problem or not :D
I was responding to the what happened to logging
On Apr 26, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion shipping a war that does not actually work is broken, because
its really no war at all.
We don't ship a war, we ship Solr. To use our war outside of what we ship,
setup the logging as CHANGES says to do. It's
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidworks.com wrote:
As to which WAR is correct, it's answered in the *first sentence* of
what I quoted:
Slf4j/logging jars are no longer included in the Solr webapp
I know why the two .wars are different:
The binary package Solr war's target chain is:
'package'-'create-package'-'dist'-'dist-war'-webapp:'dist'
The maven Solr war's target chain is:
'generate-maven-artifacts'-webapp:'dist-maven'-webapp:'dist'
So both create the war using
I am taking it up with them. Right now before its ever released. I don't
think our pmc should release two different solr-4.3.0.war files at
different download locations. And I think the war we do release, should
work.
On Apr 26, 2013 10:06 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidworks.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr
...@gmail.com]
Sent: April-26-13 10:16 AM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Lucene Solr 4.3.0 RC3
I am taking it up with them. Right now before its ever released. I don't think
our pmc should release two different solr-4.3.0.war files at different download
locations. And I think the war we
, please inform the sender by return email and delete this
email message and all copies immediately.
** **
*From:* Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* April-26-13 10:16 AM
*To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
*Subject:* Re: [VOTE] Lucene Solr 4.3.0 RC3
** **
I am taking it up with them
.
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de/ http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:56 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Lucene Solr 4.3.0 RC3
My problem
...@thetaphi.de]
Sent: April-26-13 11:03 AM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Lucene Solr 4.3.0 RC3
Another idea: We should maybe change the ClassNotFoundException to something
that makes a useful message:
If you did not put a logging implementation outside into your servlet
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Lucene Solr 4.3.0 RC3
My problem is users will put the war in their container and get
ClassNotFoundExceptions.
Instead they should get some basic system.out.println-logger or some no-op
implementation.
6 or 7 logging jars in our distribution and you are telling me
: Friday, April 26, 2013 5:14 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Lucene Solr 4.3.0 RC3
+1 - if we can manage a more useful message, that would be a good
improvement.
bq. and SolrDispatchFilter should get the highest priority in web.xml, so its
loaded first.
The problem is, we
...@ingramcontent.com]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 5:27 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Lucene Solr 4.3.0 RC3
In the catch, we could have it warn users that there is no external logging
jar and then load a default implementation (commons-logging or even no-op).
This would
.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
From: Dyer, James [mailto:james.d...@ingramcontent.com]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 5:27 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Lucene Solr 4.3.0 RC3
In the catch, we could have it warn users
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
FWIW: During my testing I did encounter one new bug: SOLR-4754, but since
it has a workarround (and i have no idea yet what the underlying problem
is to even try for a quick fix) I don't think it should block the
This is a nasty ugly ass bug with an annoying workaround. I'm committing a fix
now.
Hossman did bring it up to me a while ago, but I was too busy to comprehend it
or look into it.
- Mark
On Apr 26, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 5:18 PM,
I committed a fix.
- Mark
On Apr 26, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a nasty ugly ass bug with an annoying workaround. I'm committing a
fix now.
Hossman did bring it up to me a while ago, but I was too busy to comprehend
it or look into it.
- Mark
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 markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
I committed a fix.
- Mark
On Apr 26, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
This
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 markrmil...@gmail.com 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,
Hoss posting on SOLR-4729 reminded me that I'd like to get this bugfix into the
next RC - I'll commit it to lucene_solr_4_3 now.
Simon, if you've already started an RC, that's fine, it's not super-critical
that SOLR-4729 is included.
- Steve
On Apr 26, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Simon Willnauer
+1 smoke tester happy here.
Shai
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.orgwrote:
:
http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.3.0-RC3-rev1470846/
+1 to releasing the artifacts with the following SHA1 signatures as
Lucene/Solr 4.3.0...
+1
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Simon Willnauer
simon.willna...@gmail.comwrote:
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
+1
- Mark
On Apr 23, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Simon Willnauer simon.willna...@gmail.com wrote:
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
-1
It seems SLF4j packaging is busted? I thought I remembered slf4j jars were
removed 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 markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
+1, smoke tests pass.
Tommaso
2013/4/23 Simon Willnauer simon.willna...@gmail.com
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
+1, smoker is happy
On 24 April 2013 10:03, Tommaso Teofili tommaso.teof...@gmail.com wrote:
+1, smoke tests pass.
Tommaso
2013/4/23 Simon Willnauer simon.willna...@gmail.com
Here is a new RC candidate...
http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.3.0-RC3-rev1470846/
:
http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.3.0-RC3-rev1470846/
+1 to releasing the artifacts with the following SHA1 signatures as
Lucene/Solr 4.3.0...
3e1ec78f7b5bad2723dcf2f963d933758046afb9 *lucene-4.3.0-src.tgz
26843d53c86a9937d700f13f1d686adaca718244 *lucene-4.3.0.tgz
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
+1
It's nice to have EdgeNGramFilter doing the proper thing with token
position - all tokens are at the same position now.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Simon Willnauer
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 7:50 AM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Lucene Solr 4.3.0
+1, branch_4x smoke tester passes for me.
On Apr 23, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Simon Willnauer simon.willna...@gmail.com wrote:
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
+1, smoke tester is happy.
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Steve Rowe sar...@gmail.com wrote:
+1, branch_4x smoke tester passes for me.
On Apr 23, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Simon Willnauer simon.willna...@gmail.com
wrote:
Here is a new RC
+1 !
PyLucene 4.3 built from this RC rev builds and passes its tests.
Andi..
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013, Simon Willnauer wrote:
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
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Simon Willnauer
simon.willna...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a new RC candidate...
http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-4.3.0-RC3-rev1470846/
+1
--
Adrien
-
To unsubscribe,
41 matches
Mail list logo
