: [VOTE] Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1 release artifacts - Take #2
>
> Hallo Folks,
>
> I have posted a new release candidate (take #2) for both Lucene Java
> 2.9.2 and 3.0.1 (which both have the same bug fix level, functionality
> and release announcement), build from revis
eal -- I think having to run from a source
release is fine.
Mike
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Hallo Folks,
>
> I have posted a new release candidate (take #2) for both Lucene Java 2.9.2
> and 3.0.1 (which both have the same bug fix level, functionality and r
rg
> Subject: [VOTE] Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1 release artifacts - Take #2
>
> Hallo Folks,
>
> I have posted a new release candidate (take #2) for both Lucene Java
> 2.9.2 and 3.0.1 (which both have the same bug fix level, functionality
> and release announcement),
Hallo Folks,
I have posted a new release candidate (take #2) for both Lucene Java 2.9.2 and
3.0.1 (which both have the same bug fix level, functionality and release
announcement), build from revision 912433 of the corresponding branches. Thanks
for all your help! Please test them and give your
+1. the demo works.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Simon Willnauer <
simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> +1 from here
>
> I put the 3.0.1 into several apps and everything seems to run smoothly
> for the last couple of days. All tests pass
>
> simon
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Ted
+1 from here
I put the 3.0.1 into several apps and everything seems to run smoothly
for the last couple of days. All tests pass
simon
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> +0. I only have time to read the release documents. Uwe's apologies were
> incorrect, the language is fi
ahh you are right Uwe, even if you aren't using custom attributes, positions
could be wrong in the index, for example.
I have to go through this, but reindexing is not required, because the bugs
> were mostly missing clearAttributes() calls leading to StopFilter integer
> overflows (with Version.L
+1 on releasing.
On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:45 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Hallo Folks,
>
> I have posted a release candidate for both Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1 (which
> both have the same bug fix level, functionality and release announcement),
> build from revision 910082 of th
On Feb 17, 2010, at 5:50 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Hi Grant, inline:
>
>> Inline
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:45 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
>>
>>> Hallo Folks,
>>>
>>> I have posted a release candidate for both Lucene Java 2
i think users will have to read CHANGES to determine this: i.e. they could
be using a buggy filter and be unaffected, if they aren't using custom
attributes, certain shingle parameters, highlighting with multivalued
fields, etc, etc.
> How about: "Several bugs in Contrib's Analyzers package were
Hi Grant, inline:
> Inline
>
> On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:45 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
>
> > Hallo Folks,
> >
> > I have posted a release candidate for both Lucene Java 2.9.2 and
> 3.0.1 (which both have the same bug fix level, functionality and
> release announce
On Feb 17, 2010, at 5:35 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Inline
>
> On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:45 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
>
>> Hallo Folks,
>>
>> I have posted a release candidate for both Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1
>> (which both have the same bug
Inline
On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:45 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Hallo Folks,
>
> I have posted a release candidate for both Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1 (which
> both have the same bug fix level, functionality and release announcement),
> build from revision 910082 of the corresp
self as a non-PMC member.
>
> -
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de]
>> Sent: Monday, February 15, 20
gt; To: gene...@lucene.apache.org; java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1 release artifacts
>
> Hallo Folks,
>
> I have posted a release candidate for both Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1
> (which both have the same bug fix level, functionality and release
> a
age-
> From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de]
> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 12:46 AM
> To: gene...@lucene.apache.org; java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1 release artifacts
>
> Hallo Folks,
>
> I have posted a release candidate for
i checked, the demo and demo webapp works for both versions.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Hallo Folks,
>
> I have posted a release candidate for both Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1
> (which both have the same bug fix level, functionality and release
&g
Hallo Folks,
I have posted a release candidate for both Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1 (which
both have the same bug fix level, functionality and release announcement),
build from revision 910082 of the corresponding branches. Thanks for all your
help! Please test them and give your votes until
On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
> +1 to release. Thank you for volunteering :) We've got a number of
> good bug fixes pending...
>
> But: I think we should simply name it 3.0.1? If we skip 3.0.1 I think
I'd agree. Stick w/ 3.0.1
-Grant
---
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Michael McCandless
wrote:
> +1 to release. Thank you for volunteering :) We've got a number of
> good bug fixes pending...
+1 I already know a couple of people looking forward to this releases!
>
> But: I think we should simply name it 3.0.1? If we skip 3.0.1 I t
+1 to release. Thank you for volunteering :) We've got a number of
good bug fixes pending...
But: I think we should simply name it 3.0.1? If we skip 3.0.1 I think
it will cause confusion? We can state in the CHANGES that 2.9.2 has
same bug fixes as 3.0.1 and vice/versa?
Mike
On Sun, Feb 7, 2
Hallo all,
I think it is ready to start the release process of 3.0.(1|2) and 2.9.2 soon.
Before building the artifacts I would compare the changelogs and try to merge
them to get a similar bugfix level for both versions. I would like to release
both versions on the same day with the same releas
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 1:34 PM
>>> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: Lucene Java 2.9.2
>>>
>>> My plan was to r
ease, as the port is progressing, and bug fix specific to
porting issues.
In this case, my question was about porting over only 1 patch from Lucene
Java 2.9.2 to Lucene.Net 2.9.1 (i.e.: a patch found in newer version of
Lucene Java to an older version of Lucene.Net). If we do so, (which I'm
aga
rs in sync 1-to-1.
it reasises some questions about what to do if a bug is discovered in the
*porting*. ie: if after "Lucene.Net 2.9.2" is released, it's discovered
that there was a glitch, and it doesn't actually match the behavior of
Lucene-JAva 2.9.2" what should be do
tions about what to do if a bug is discovered in the
*porting*. ie: if after "Lucene.Net 2.9.2" is released, it's discovered
that there was a glitch, and it doesn't actually match the behavior of
Lucene-JAva 2.9.2" what should be done? ... "Lucene.Net 2.9.3" and
&
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 1:34 PM
>> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: Lucene Java 2.9.2
>>
>&
: LUCENE-2190
Thanks.
-- George
-Original Message-
From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 7:43 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene Java 2.9.2
I wanted to mention: I wanted to wait a little bit to have progress with the
last transitions
://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 1:34 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene Java 2.9.2
>
> My plan was to release it together with 3.0
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 12:26 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene Java 2.9.2
>
> Lucene 2.9.2 hasn'
Lucene 2.9.2 hasn't been released yet, but I think we should release
it at some point soonish? It's accumulated some important bug fixes.
Mike
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:59 PM, George Aroush wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Over at Lucene.Net, we have 2.9.1 ready for official release. This is a
> port of
Hi Folks,
Over at Lucene.Net, we have 2.9.1 ready for official release. This is a
port of the current Lucene Java 2.9.1 release.
When I raised the question about releasing Lucene.Net 2.9.1, a question was
asked to port over LUCENE-2190 for which a patch was quickly made (see:
https://issues.apac
32 matches
Mail list logo
