Re: Build failed in Hudson: Lucene-trunk #1144

> it doesn't really matter if it's ant scripts, or ivy declarations, or > maven pom entries -- the point is the same. > > We can't distribute the jars, but we can distribute programatic means for > users to fetch teh jars themselves. > > (even if we magicly switched to ivy or maven for dependency m

Re: Build failed in Hudson: Lucene-trunk #1144

: No, no, no, Lucene still has no need for maven or ivy for dependency management. : We can just hack around all issues with ant scripts. it doesn't really matter if it's ant scripts, or ivy declarations, or maven pom entries -- the point is the same. We can't distribute the jars, but we can d

Re: Build failed in Hudson: Lucene-trunk #1144

No, no, no, Lucene still has no need for maven or ivy for dependency management. We can just hack around all issues with ant scripts. : ) On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 09:48, Chris Hostetter wrote: > > : I was wondering yesterday why aren't the required libs checked in to SVN? We > > Licensing issues. >

Re: Build failed in Hudson: Lucene-trunk #1144

: I was wondering yesterday why aren't the required libs checked in to SVN? We Licensing issues. we can't redistribute them (but we can provide the build.xml code to fetch them) -Hoss - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsu

Re: Build failed in Hudson: Lucene-trunk #1144

Looks like the DB tests failed due to a connection problem. I was wondering yesterday why aren't the required libs checked in to SVN? We can periodically update them, if necessary (e.g. if they fix a bug). We checked in a lot of things already, including the backwards code, so what are 2 more jar

Build failed in Hudson: Lucene-trunk #1144

See Changes: [mikemccand] LUCENE-2360: don't use .toArray to recycle byte[] blocks used by doc stores [gsingers] add a minor comment [gsingers] added some comments [gsingers] added some comments, removed an extra, useless i