All tests pass for me :)
Mike
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Alight, so we have implemented Hoss' suggestion here on the lucene/solr
> merged dev branch at lucene/solr/branches/newtrunk.
>
> Feel free to check it out and give some feedback.
>
> We also roughly have Solr r
Alight, so we have implemented Hoss' suggestion here on the lucene/solr
merged dev branch at lucene/solr/branches/newtrunk.
Feel free to check it out and give some feedback.
We also roughly have Solr running on Lucene trunk - eg compiling Solr
will first compile lucene and run off those compil
: Okay, so this looks good to me (a few others seemed to like it - though
: Lucene-Dev was somehow dropped earlier) - lets try this out on the branch?
It's the hassle of cross posting, really easy for someone to not reply to
all (especailly since i think all of the ASF lists rewrite the Reply-To
On 03/17/2010 12:46 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
Okay, so this looks good to me (a few others seemed to like it - though
Lucene-Dev was somehow dropped earlier) - lets try this out on the branch?
(then we can get rid of that "horrible" branch n
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Okay, so this looks good to me (a few others seemed to like it - though
> Lucene-Dev was somehow dropped earlier) - lets try this out on the branch?
> (then we can get rid of that "horrible" branch name ;) )
>
> Anyone on the current branch ob
Okay, so this looks good to me (a few others seemed to like it - though
Lucene-Dev was somehow dropped earlier) - lets try this out on the
branch? (then we can get rid of that "horrible" branch name ;) )
Anyone on the current branch object to having to do a quick svn switch?
On 03/16/2010 06:4
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Michael McCandless
wrote:
> Git, Maven, Hg, etc., all sound great for the future, but let's focus
> now on the baby step (how to re-org svn), today, so we can land the
> Solr upgrade work now being done on a branch...
>
I agree.
Another thing anyone can do to hel
stetter
>> To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 6:46:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: lucene and solr trunk
>>
>> : Otis, yes, I think so, eventually. But that's gonna take much more
>> discussion.
> :
> : I don't think this initial cut
+1 for this structure and this set of steps.
Otis
- Original Message
> From: Chris Hostetter
> To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 6:46:19 PM
> Subject: Re: lucene and solr trunk
>
> : Otis, yes, I think so, eventually. But that'
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Chris Hostetter
wrote:
> : Otis, yes, I think so, eventually. But that's gonna take much more
> discussion.
> :
> : I don't think this initial cutover should try to "solve" how modules
> : will be organized, yet... we'll get there, eventually.
>
> But we should at
On 03/16/2010 06:46 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
Here's my concrete suggestion that could be done today
+1
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
: Otis, yes, I think so, eventually. But that's gonna take much more
discussion.
:
: I don't think this initial cutover should try to "solve" how modules
: will be organized, yet... we'll get there, eventually.
But we should at least consider it, and not move in a direction that's
distinct fro
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 02:57:33PM -0700, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> Check out the dir structure mentioned here:
> http://markmail.org/message/gwpmaevw7tavqqge
>
> Isn't that what we want?
I think the downside of that hierarchy is that you will need the "modules"
directory if you're working on Luc
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Otis Gospodnetic <
otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Check out the dir structure mentioned here:
> http://markmail.org/message/gwpmaevw7tavqqge
>
> Isn't that what we want?
>
I'm totally down with this structure, personally. Not that I matter. :)
-j
>
>
>
> - Original Message
>> From: Mark Miller
>> To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Sent: Mon, March 15, 2010 11:43:48 PM
>> Subject: Re: lucene and solr trunk
>>
>> On 03/15/2010 11:28 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>> So, we have a few opti
k Miller
> To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, March 15, 2010 11:43:48 PM
> Subject: Re: lucene and solr trunk
>
> On 03/15/2010 11:28 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> So, we have a few options on
> where to put Solr's new trunk:
>
>
> Solr moves to Lucene'
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Simon Willnauer
wrote:
> One more thing which I wonder about even more is that this whole
> merging happens so quickly for reasons I don't see right now. I don't
> want to keep anybody from making progress but it appears like a rush
> to me.
By the way, the seri
: Yep, those users probably already hate our backwards tests and the
: contrib tests too.
probably ... which is just another reason why it probably makes sense
sense to move "core" stuff from Lucene-Java into it's own "module" along
side solr, and other modules that get refactored out of Solr o
Hi Hoss,
> : > (i suspect a whole lot of people who only care about the core library are
> : > going to really adamantly not want to have to check out all of Solr just
> : > to work on the core)
> :
> : This wouldn't really be merged development now would it?
> : When I run 'ant test' I want the S
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Chris Hostetter
wrote:
> And as a committer, you should be concerned about things like this ...
> that doesn't mean every user of Lucene-Java who wants to build from source
> or apply their own local patches is going to feel the same way.
>
Yep, those users prob
: > (i suspect a whole lot of people who only care about the core library are
: > going to really adamantly not want to have to check out all of Solr just
: > to work on the core)
:
: This wouldn't really be merged development now would it?
: When I run 'ant test' I want the Solr tests to run, to
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Chris Hostetter
wrote:
> 4) should it be possible for people to check out Lucene-Java w/o
> checking out Solr?
>
> (i suspect a whole lot of people who only care about the core library are
> going to really adamantly not want to have to check out all of Solr just
: prime-time as the new solr trunk! Lucene and Solr need to move to a
: common trunk for a host of reasons, including single patches that can
: cover both, shared tags and branches, and shared test code w/o a test
: jar.
Without a clearer picture of how people envision development "overhead"
wor
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>>
>> Solr moves to Lucene's trunk:
>> /java/trunk, /java/trunk/sol
>
> +1. With the goal of merged dev, merged tests, this looks the best to me.
> Simple to do patches that span both, simple to setup
> Solr to use Lucene trunk rather than jar
On 03/15/2010 11:28 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
So, we have a few options on where to put Solr's new trunk:
Solr moves to Lucene's trunk:
/java/trunk, /java/trunk/sol
+1. With the goal of merged dev, merged tests, this looks the best to
me. Simple to do patches that span both, simple to setup
Due to a tremendous amount of work by our newly merged committer
corps, the get-on-lucene-trunk branch (branches/solr) is ready for
prime-time as the new solr trunk! Lucene and Solr need to move to a
common trunk for a host of reasons, including single patches that can
cover both, shared tags and
26 matches
Mail list logo
