Hi all,
I got three positive votes from:
- Andi Vajda
- Mike McCandless
- Ted Dunning
I will copy the release artifacts to the apache dist server this evening and
let the mirroring start. During that time I will prepare the website changes
and will announce the release as planned.
-
Uwe
+1 to release. I used each version's binary release to build & search a
5M wikipedia index.
Search performance is the same for TermQuery with both releases, but
for PhraseQuery (at least the 3 simple 2-word phrases I tested) was
~9% faster (20.49 QPS -> 22.29 QPS). Not sure why... but it's movin
Hi all,
I also checked the release artifacts in my projects and can conclude, that the
3.0.1 version works correctly for me. 2.9.x is no longer in use here. But both
-src artifact files build and test correctly. Signatures are fine and also
hashes.
So a non-counting +1 from me (non-PMC).
Uwe
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 the corresponding bra
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 2.9.2 and
>> 3.0.1 (which both have the same bug fix level, functionalit
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 announcement), build from revision 910082 of t
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 fix level, functionality and release
>> announcem
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 corresponding branches. Tha
10 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 both Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1
>> (which both have the s
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
> announcement), build
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 Th
I'm wondering about the size of the builds, which are surprisingly big to me.
The src is 12M/13M and the bin is 17M/26M (tar.gz/zip) for 2.9.1, similar for
3.0.0.
In looking at the binary artifact I see the following:
* Every contrib jar has a corresponding javadoc jar, but there is no
core-jav
19 matches
Mail list logo
