On 3/5/2014 1:36 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
On 3/4/2014 8:15 PM, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Thanks, Tim, it's great to hear you say that! I tried to make that
point myself with various patches, but they never really got taken up by
committers, so I kind of gave up, but I agree with you 100% this is a
Yeah, sorry :( the fix applied is only for compatibility in one direction.
Older code won’t know what this type 19 is.
- Mark
http://about.me/markrmiller
On Mar 4, 2014, at 2:42 AM, Thomas Scheffler thomas.scheff...@uni-jena.de
wrote:
Am 04.03.2014 07:21, schrieb Thomas Scheffler:
Am
Does that mean newer clients work with older servers (I think so, from
reading this thread), or the other way round? If so, I guess the advice
would be -- upgrade all your clients first?
-Mike
On 03/04/2014 10:00 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
Yeah, sorry :( the fix applied is only for
compatibility with different versions.
Timothy Potter
Sr. Software Engineer, LucidWorks
www.lucidworks.com
From: Michael Sokolov msoko...@safaribooksonline.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 8:37 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: SOLRJ and SOLR
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 8:37 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: SOLRJ and SOLR compatibility
Does that mean newer clients work with older servers (I think so, from
reading this thread), or the other way round? If so, I guess the advice
would be -- upgrade all your clients first
On 3/4/2014 8:15 PM, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Thanks, Tim, it's great to hear you say that! I tried to make that
point myself with various patches, but they never really got taken up by
committers, so I kind of gave up, but I agree with you 100% this is a
critical feature if you want to get
Am 27.02.2014 09:15, schrieb Shawn Heisey:
On 2/27/2014 12:49 AM, Thomas Scheffler wrote:
What problems have you seen with mixing 4.6.0 and 4.6.1? It's possible
that I'm completely ignorant here, but I have not heard of any.
Actually bug reports arrive me that sound like
Unknown type 19
Am 04.03.2014 07:21, schrieb Thomas Scheffler:
Am 27.02.2014 09:15, schrieb Shawn Heisey:
On 2/27/2014 12:49 AM, Thomas Scheffler wrote:
What problems have you seen with mixing 4.6.0 and 4.6.1? It's possible
that I'm completely ignorant here, but I have not heard of any.
Actually bug
On 2/27/2014 12:49 AM, Thomas Scheffler wrote:
What problems have you seen with mixing 4.6.0 and 4.6.1? It's possible
that I'm completely ignorant here, but I have not heard of any.
Actually bug reports arrive me that sound like
Unknown type 19
Aha! I found it! It was caused by the
Hi,
I am one developer of a repository framework. We rely on the fact, that
SolrJ generally maintains backwards compatibility, so you can use a
newer SolrJ with an older Solr, or an older SolrJ with a newer Solr. [1]
This statement is not even true for bugfix releases like 4.6.0 - 4.6.1.
On 2/26/2014 11:22 PM, Thomas Scheffler wrote:
I am one developer of a repository framework. We rely on the fact, that
SolrJ generally maintains backwards compatibility, so you can use a
newer SolrJ with an older Solr, or an older SolrJ with a newer Solr. [1]
This statement is not even true
Am 27.02.2014 08:04, schrieb Shawn Heisey:
On 2/26/2014 11:22 PM, Thomas Scheffler wrote:
I am one developer of a repository framework. We rely on the fact, that
SolrJ generally maintains backwards compatibility, so you can use a
newer SolrJ with an older Solr, or an older SolrJ with a newer
12 matches
Mail list logo
