You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to solr-user@lucene.apache.org by Markus Jelsma <ma...@buyways.nl> on 2010/09/09 11:47:56 UTC
RE: svn branch issues
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/
-----Original message-----
From: Mark Allan <ma...@ed.ac.uk>
Sent: Thu 09-09-2010 10:44
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org;
Subject: svn branch issues
Hi all,
As I've mentioned in the past, I've created some custom field types
which make use of the AbstractSubTypeFieldType class in the current
trunk version of solr for a service we're working on. We're getting
close to putting our service into production (early 2011) and we're
now looking for a stable version of Solr to use with these classes.
Unfortunately, my field types don't compile against the current stable
version (Solr 1.4) because of the missing AbstractSubTypeFieldType and
other required classes.
Having had a look at JIRA to see the number of outstanding unresolved
issues, I tried downloading the now defunct 1.5 branch on the
assumption that it's more stable than the current trunk. Whether or
not that's a safe assumption remains to be seen!
Anyway, the problem is when I try to checkout the 1.5 branch, I get an
error from subversion:
$ svn co http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/solr/branches/branch-1.5-dev
svn: Repository moved permanently to '/viewvc/lucene/solr/branches/
branch-1.5-dev/'; please relocate
Going to http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/solr/branches/branch-1.5-dev
in a browser shows the web view and contents of that branch, so
something's not right with the subversion server.
Anyone got any pointers please?
Alternatively, how stable is the current trunk? Does it have a long
way to go before being released as a stable version?
Many thanks
Mark
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Re: Version stability [was: svn branch issues]
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree it's mainly API wise, but there are other issues - largely due
> to Lucene right now - consider the bugs that have been dug up this year
> on the 4.x line because flex has been such a large rewrite deep in
> Lucene. We wouldn't do flex on the 3.x stable line and it's taken a
> while for everything to shake out in 4.x (and it's prob still swaying).
Right. That big difference also has implications for the 3.x line too
though - possible backports of new features like field collapsing or
per-segment faceting that involve the flex API would involve a good
amount of re-writing (along with the introduction of new bugs). I'd
put my money on 4.0-dev being actually *more* stable for these new
features.
-Yonik
http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
Re: Version stability [was: svn branch issues]
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
I agree it's mainly API wise, but there are other issues - largely due
to Lucene right now - consider the bugs that have been dug up this year
on the 4.x line because flex has been such a large rewrite deep in
Lucene. We wouldn't do flex on the 3.x stable line and it's taken a
while for everything to shake out in 4.x (and it's prob still swaying).
- Mark
On 9/17/10 10:27 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> I think we aim for a "stable" trunk (4.0-dev) too, as we always have
> (in the functional sense... i.e. operate correctly, don't crash, etc).
>
> The stability is more a reference to API stability - the Java APIs are
> much more likely to change on trunk. Solr's *external* APIs are much
> less likely to change for core services. For example, I don't see us
> ever changing the "rows" parameter or the XML update format in a
> non-back-compat way.
>
> Companies can (and do) go to production on trunk versions of Solr
> after thorough testing in their scenario (as they should do with *any*
> new version of solr that isn't strictly bugfix).
>
> -Yonik
> http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
>
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The 3.x line should be pretty stable. Hopefully we will do a release
>> soon. A conversation was again started about more frequent releases
>> recently, and hopefully that will lead to a 3.x release near term.
>>
>> In any case, 3.x is the stable branch - 4.x is where the more crazy
>> stuff happens. If you are used to the terms, 4.x is the unstable branch,
>> though some freak out if you call that for fear you think its 'really
>> unstable'. In reality, it just means likely less stable than the stable
>> branch (3.x), as we target 3.x for stability and 4.x for stickier or non
>> back compat changes.
>>
>> Eventually 4.x will be stable and 5.x unstable, with possible
>> maintenance support for previous stable lines as well.
>>
>> - Mark
>> lucidimagination.com
>>
>> On 9/17/10 9:58 AM, Mark Allan wrote:
>>> OK, 1.5 won't be released, so we'll avoid that. I've now got my code
>>> additions compiling against a version of 3.x so we'll stick with that
>>> rather than solr_trunk for the time being.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any sense of when 3.x might be considered stable enough
>>> for a release? We're hoping to go to service with something built on
>>> Solr in Jan 2011 and would like to avoid development phase software, but
>>> if needs must...
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9 Sep 2010, at 12:10 pm, Markus Jelsma wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, it's under heavy development but the 3.x branch is more likely
>>>> to become released than 1.5.x, which is highly unlikely to be ever
>>>> released.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday 09 September 2010 13:04:38 Mark Allan wrote:
>>>>> Thanks. Are you suggesting I use branch_3x and is that considered
>>>>> stable?
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9 Sep 2010, at 10:47 am, Markus Jelsma wrote:
>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Version stability [was: svn branch issues]
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
I think we aim for a "stable" trunk (4.0-dev) too, as we always have
(in the functional sense... i.e. operate correctly, don't crash, etc).
The stability is more a reference to API stability - the Java APIs are
much more likely to change on trunk. Solr's *external* APIs are much
less likely to change for core services. For example, I don't see us
ever changing the "rows" parameter or the XML update format in a
non-back-compat way.
Companies can (and do) go to production on trunk versions of Solr
after thorough testing in their scenario (as they should do with *any*
new version of solr that isn't strictly bugfix).
-Yonik
http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The 3.x line should be pretty stable. Hopefully we will do a release
> soon. A conversation was again started about more frequent releases
> recently, and hopefully that will lead to a 3.x release near term.
>
> In any case, 3.x is the stable branch - 4.x is where the more crazy
> stuff happens. If you are used to the terms, 4.x is the unstable branch,
> though some freak out if you call that for fear you think its 'really
> unstable'. In reality, it just means likely less stable than the stable
> branch (3.x), as we target 3.x for stability and 4.x for stickier or non
> back compat changes.
>
> Eventually 4.x will be stable and 5.x unstable, with possible
> maintenance support for previous stable lines as well.
>
> - Mark
> lucidimagination.com
>
> On 9/17/10 9:58 AM, Mark Allan wrote:
>> OK, 1.5 won't be released, so we'll avoid that. I've now got my code
>> additions compiling against a version of 3.x so we'll stick with that
>> rather than solr_trunk for the time being.
>>
>> Does anyone have any sense of when 3.x might be considered stable enough
>> for a release? We're hoping to go to service with something built on
>> Solr in Jan 2011 and would like to avoid development phase software, but
>> if needs must...
>>
>> Thanks
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On 9 Sep 2010, at 12:10 pm, Markus Jelsma wrote:
>>
>>> Well, it's under heavy development but the 3.x branch is more likely
>>> to become released than 1.5.x, which is highly unlikely to be ever
>>> released.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday 09 September 2010 13:04:38 Mark Allan wrote:
>>>> Thanks. Are you suggesting I use branch_3x and is that considered
>>>> stable?
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> On 9 Sep 2010, at 10:47 am, Markus Jelsma wrote:
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Version stability [was: svn branch issues]
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
The 3.x line should be pretty stable. Hopefully we will do a release
soon. A conversation was again started about more frequent releases
recently, and hopefully that will lead to a 3.x release near term.
In any case, 3.x is the stable branch - 4.x is where the more crazy
stuff happens. If you are used to the terms, 4.x is the unstable branch,
though some freak out if you call that for fear you think its 'really
unstable'. In reality, it just means likely less stable than the stable
branch (3.x), as we target 3.x for stability and 4.x for stickier or non
back compat changes.
Eventually 4.x will be stable and 5.x unstable, with possible
maintenance support for previous stable lines as well.
- Mark
lucidimagination.com
On 9/17/10 9:58 AM, Mark Allan wrote:
> OK, 1.5 won't be released, so we'll avoid that. I've now got my code
> additions compiling against a version of 3.x so we'll stick with that
> rather than solr_trunk for the time being.
>
> Does anyone have any sense of when 3.x might be considered stable enough
> for a release? We're hoping to go to service with something built on
> Solr in Jan 2011 and would like to avoid development phase software, but
> if needs must...
>
> Thanks
> Mark
>
>
> On 9 Sep 2010, at 12:10 pm, Markus Jelsma wrote:
>
>> Well, it's under heavy development but the 3.x branch is more likely
>> to become released than 1.5.x, which is highly unlikely to be ever
>> released.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 09 September 2010 13:04:38 Mark Allan wrote:
>>> Thanks. Are you suggesting I use branch_3x and is that considered
>>> stable?
>>> Cheers
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On 9 Sep 2010, at 10:47 am, Markus Jelsma wrote:
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/
>
>
Version stability [was: svn branch issues]
Posted by Mark Allan <ma...@ed.ac.uk>.
OK, 1.5 won't be released, so we'll avoid that. I've now got my code
additions compiling against a version of 3.x so we'll stick with that
rather than solr_trunk for the time being.
Does anyone have any sense of when 3.x might be considered stable
enough for a release? We're hoping to go to service with something
built on Solr in Jan 2011 and would like to avoid development phase
software, but if needs must...
Thanks
Mark
On 9 Sep 2010, at 12:10 pm, Markus Jelsma wrote:
> Well, it's under heavy development but the 3.x branch is more likely
> to become released than 1.5.x, which is highly unlikely to be ever
> released.
>
>
> On Thursday 09 September 2010 13:04:38 Mark Allan wrote:
>> Thanks. Are you suggesting I use branch_3x and is that considered
>> stable?
>> Cheers
>> Mark
>>
>> On 9 Sep 2010, at 10:47 am, Markus Jelsma wrote:
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Re: svn branch issues
Posted by Markus Jelsma <ma...@buyways.nl>.
Well, it's under heavy development but the 3.x branch is more likely to become
released than 1.5.x, which is highly unlikely to be ever released.
On Thursday 09 September 2010 13:04:38 Mark Allan wrote:
> Thanks. Are you suggesting I use branch_3x and is that considered
> stable?
> Cheers
> Mark
>
> On 9 Sep 2010, at 10:47 am, Markus Jelsma wrote:
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/
> >
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: Mark Allan <ma...@ed.ac.uk>
> > Sent: Thu 09-09-2010 10:44
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org;
> > Subject: svn branch issues
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As I've mentioned in the past, I've created some custom field types
> > which make use of the AbstractSubTypeFieldType class in the current
> > trunk version of solr for a service we're working on. We're getting
> > close to putting our service into production (early 2011) and we're
> > now looking for a stable version of Solr to use with these classes.
> > Unfortunately, my field types don't compile against the current stable
> > version (Solr 1.4) because of the missing AbstractSubTypeFieldType and
> > other required classes.
> >
> > Having had a look at JIRA to see the number of outstanding unresolved
> > issues, I tried downloading the now defunct 1.5 branch on the
> > assumption that it's more stable than the current trunk. Whether or
> > not that's a safe assumption remains to be seen!
> >
> > Anyway, the problem is when I try to checkout the 1.5 branch, I get an
> > error from subversion:
> >
> > $ svn co http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/solr/branches/branch-1.5-dev
> > svn: Repository moved permanently to '/viewvc/lucene/solr/branches/
> > branch-1.5-dev/'; please relocate
> >
> > Going to http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/solr/branches/branch-1.5-dev
> > in a browser shows the web view and contents of that branch, so
> > something's not right with the subversion server.
> >
> > Anyone got any pointers please?
> >
> > Alternatively, how stable is the current trunk? Does it have a long
> > way to go before being released as a stable version?
> >
> > Many thanks
> > Mark
>
Markus Jelsma - Technisch Architect - Buyways BV
http://www.linkedin.com/in/markus17
050-8536620 / 06-50258350
Re: svn branch issues
Posted by Mark Allan <ma...@ed.ac.uk>.
Thanks. Are you suggesting I use branch_3x and is that considered
stable?
Cheers
Mark
On 9 Sep 2010, at 10:47 am, Markus Jelsma wrote:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/
>
> -----Original message-----
> From: Mark Allan <ma...@ed.ac.uk>
> Sent: Thu 09-09-2010 10:44
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org;
> Subject: svn branch issues
>
> Hi all,
>
> As I've mentioned in the past, I've created some custom field types
> which make use of the AbstractSubTypeFieldType class in the current
> trunk version of solr for a service we're working on. We're getting
> close to putting our service into production (early 2011) and we're
> now looking for a stable version of Solr to use with these classes.
> Unfortunately, my field types don't compile against the current stable
> version (Solr 1.4) because of the missing AbstractSubTypeFieldType and
> other required classes.
>
> Having had a look at JIRA to see the number of outstanding unresolved
> issues, I tried downloading the now defunct 1.5 branch on the
> assumption that it's more stable than the current trunk. Whether or
> not that's a safe assumption remains to be seen!
>
> Anyway, the problem is when I try to checkout the 1.5 branch, I get an
> error from subversion:
>
> $ svn co http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/solr/branches/branch-1.5-dev
> svn: Repository moved permanently to '/viewvc/lucene/solr/branches/
> branch-1.5-dev/'; please relocate
>
> Going to http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/solr/branches/branch-1.5-dev
> in a browser shows the web view and contents of that branch, so
> something's not right with the subversion server.
>
> Anyone got any pointers please?
>
> Alternatively, how stable is the current trunk? Does it have a long
> way to go before being released as a stable version?
>
> Many thanks
> Mark
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.