You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> on 2011/05/31 05:54:01 UTC
[VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Please vote to release the artifacts at http://s.apache.org/lusolr32rc2 as 3.2.0
Changes from rc1 are mostly packaging issues that testers found:
* SOLR-2557 ensure example configuration files have the correct
LUCENE_MATCH_VERSION
* SOLR-2558 remove "apache lucene version" from solr changes.txt
"Versions of major components"
* SOLR-2559 All solr contrib/*/CHANGES.txt have "3.2-dev" as the
release header.
* LUCENE-3009 binary packaging: lucene modules/contribs that
depend on jars are confusing
* LUCENE-3154 remove version references from the versioned website
* LUCENE-3155 possibly improve includes/excludes for packages files
* LUCENE-3156 remove references to contribs that dont exist from docs
* LUCENE-3157 packaging is sometimes .tar.gz, sometimes .tgz
* LUCENE-3158 ensure binary artifacts contain the necessary licensing files
* LUCENE-3159 lucene benchmark has some unnecessary files
* LUCENE-3160 lucene source build doesn't work correctly by itself
from the src dist
* LUCENE-3161 consider warnings from the source compilation
* LUCENE-3162 NOTICE.txt refers to .jar files which are not
included in the binary archives.
* LUCENE-3163 CHANGES.txt has no release date for 3.1.0
* Included Changes2Html output
* KEYS files in both releases (also registered my key with id.apache.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please vote to release the artifacts at http://s.apache.org/lusolr32rc2 as 3.2.0
+1, nice job!
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
> Changes from rc1 are mostly packaging issues that testers found:
> * SOLR-2557 ensure example configuration files have the correct
> LUCENE_MATCH_VERSION
> * SOLR-2558 remove "apache lucene version" from solr changes.txt
> "Versions of major components"
> * SOLR-2559 All solr contrib/*/CHANGES.txt have "3.2-dev" as the
> release header.
> * LUCENE-3009 binary packaging: lucene modules/contribs that
> depend on jars are confusing
> * LUCENE-3154 remove version references from the versioned website
> * LUCENE-3155 possibly improve includes/excludes for packages files
> * LUCENE-3156 remove references to contribs that dont exist from docs
> * LUCENE-3157 packaging is sometimes .tar.gz, sometimes .tgz
> * LUCENE-3158 ensure binary artifacts contain the necessary licensing files
> * LUCENE-3159 lucene benchmark has some unnecessary files
> * LUCENE-3160 lucene source build doesn't work correctly by itself
> from the src dist
> * LUCENE-3161 consider warnings from the source compilation
> * LUCENE-3162 NOTICE.txt refers to .jar files which are not
> included in the binary archives.
> * LUCENE-3163 CHANGES.txt has no release date for 3.1.0
> * Included Changes2Html output
> * KEYS files in both releases (also registered my key with id.apache.org)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Stanislaw Osinski <st...@osinski.name>.
Hi Robert,
I've verified that the clustering component works fine. The only trivial
thing is the incorrect notice file for SimpleXML (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2561), but we can fix that in the
next release.
Cheers,
Staszek
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 05:54, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please vote to release the artifacts at http://s.apache.org/lusolr32rc2 as
> 3.2.0
>
> Changes from rc1 are mostly packaging issues that testers found:
> * SOLR-2557 ensure example configuration files have the correct
> LUCENE_MATCH_VERSION
> * SOLR-2558 remove "apache lucene version" from solr changes.txt
> "Versions of major components"
> * SOLR-2559 All solr contrib/*/CHANGES.txt have "3.2-dev" as the
> release header.
> * LUCENE-3009 binary packaging: lucene modules/contribs that
> depend on jars are confusing
> * LUCENE-3154 remove version references from the versioned website
> * LUCENE-3155 possibly improve includes/excludes for packages files
> * LUCENE-3156 remove references to contribs that dont exist from docs
> * LUCENE-3157 packaging is sometimes .tar.gz, sometimes .tgz
> * LUCENE-3158 ensure binary artifacts contain the necessary licensing
> files
> * LUCENE-3159 lucene benchmark has some unnecessary files
> * LUCENE-3160 lucene source build doesn't work correctly by itself
> from the src dist
> * LUCENE-3161 consider warnings from the source compilation
> * LUCENE-3162 NOTICE.txt refers to .jar files which are not
> included in the binary archives.
> * LUCENE-3163 CHANGES.txt has no release date for 3.1.0
> * Included Changes2Html output
> * KEYS files in both releases (also registered my key with id.apache.org)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
thanks everyone for voting and checking out the artifacts!
vote passes!
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Andi Vajda <va...@osafoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Andi Vajda <va...@osafoundation.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I checked out Lucene sources from the lucene_solr_3_2 branch, built
>>> PyLucene
>>> from them and all tests passed.
>>>
>>> Thank you for having fixed the bug that prevented a lucene-only checkout
>>> from building (LUCENE-3160, I believe) !
>>
>> Errrr, hopefully you won't have expectations of "lucene-only" in the
>> future. There has been a lot of work lately to refactor parts of solr
>> code to the shared modules space (i.e. it's both lucene and solr).
>> It's also the case that it's step-by-step - for example code may be
>> refactored to "modules" but some/much of the test code may still
>> temporarily be under "solr". It's one project now...
>
> Yes, on trunk, I already build-in some [1] modules so it's not lucene-only
> there.
>
> As more code moves into modules, I expect that all the ones that make sense
> to be compiled into PyLucene. By "make sense", I mean the ones that are not
> geared towards setting up and running an HTTP search stack but that are
> useful directly, from Python, as libraries.
>
> Andi..
>
> [1] analysis/common and analysis/smartcn
>
>>
>> -Yonik
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Andi Vajda <va...@osafoundation.org>.
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Andi Vajda <va...@osafoundation.org> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> I checked out Lucene sources from the lucene_solr_3_2 branch, built PyLucene
>> from them and all tests passed.
>>
>> Thank you for having fixed the bug that prevented a lucene-only checkout
>> from building (LUCENE-3160, I believe) !
>
> Errrr, hopefully you won't have expectations of "lucene-only" in the
> future. There has been a lot of work lately to refactor parts of solr
> code to the shared modules space (i.e. it's both lucene and solr).
> It's also the case that it's step-by-step - for example code may be
> refactored to "modules" but some/much of the test code may still
> temporarily be under "solr". It's one project now...
Yes, on trunk, I already build-in some [1] modules so it's not lucene-only
there.
As more code moves into modules, I expect that all the ones that make sense
to be compiled into PyLucene. By "make sense", I mean the ones that are not
geared towards setting up and running an HTTP search stack but that are
useful directly, from Python, as libraries.
Andi..
[1] analysis/common and analysis/smartcn
>
> -Yonik
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Andi Vajda <va...@osafoundation.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> I checked out Lucene sources from the lucene_solr_3_2 branch, built PyLucene
> from them and all tests passed.
>
> Thank you for having fixed the bug that prevented a lucene-only checkout
> from building (LUCENE-3160, I believe) !
Errrr, hopefully you won't have expectations of "lucene-only" in the
future. There has been a lot of work lately to refactor parts of solr
code to the shared modules space (i.e. it's both lucene and solr).
It's also the case that it's step-by-step - for example code may be
refactored to "modules" but some/much of the test code may still
temporarily be under "solr". It's one project now...
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Andi Vajda <va...@osafoundation.org>.
+1
I checked out Lucene sources from the lucene_solr_3_2 branch, built PyLucene
from them and all tests passed.
Thank you for having fixed the bug that prevented a lucene-only checkout
from building (LUCENE-3160, I believe) !
Andi..
On Mon, 30 May 2011, Robert Muir wrote:
> Please vote to release the artifacts at http://s.apache.org/lusolr32rc2 as 3.2.0
>
> Changes from rc1 are mostly packaging issues that testers found:
> * SOLR-2557 ensure example configuration files have the correct
> LUCENE_MATCH_VERSION
> * SOLR-2558 remove "apache lucene version" from solr changes.txt
> "Versions of major components"
> * SOLR-2559 All solr contrib/*/CHANGES.txt have "3.2-dev" as the
> release header.
> * LUCENE-3009 binary packaging: lucene modules/contribs that
> depend on jars are confusing
> * LUCENE-3154 remove version references from the versioned website
> * LUCENE-3155 possibly improve includes/excludes for packages files
> * LUCENE-3156 remove references to contribs that dont exist from docs
> * LUCENE-3157 packaging is sometimes .tar.gz, sometimes .tgz
> * LUCENE-3158 ensure binary artifacts contain the necessary licensing files
> * LUCENE-3159 lucene benchmark has some unnecessary files
> * LUCENE-3160 lucene source build doesn't work correctly by itself
> from the src dist
> * LUCENE-3161 consider warnings from the source compilation
> * LUCENE-3162 NOTICE.txt refers to .jar files which are not
> included in the binary archives.
> * LUCENE-3163 CHANGES.txt has no release date for 3.1.0
> * Included Changes2Html output
> * KEYS files in both releases (also registered my key with id.apache.org)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Koji Sekiguchi <ko...@r.email.ne.jp> wrote:
> +1 to release. Great work!
>
> I saw a trivial issue in solr bin package (apache-solr-3.2.0.tgz).
> I cannot find any script files for backup/replication (e.g. abc, snappuller,
> snapinstaller,...).
> Is this intentional or missing that I should open a ticket?
> (If I remember correctly, apache-solr-1.x.x.tgz included those files.)
>
I don't think this is intentional... we should open an issue if you
think this should be in the binary release!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Koji Sekiguchi <ko...@r.email.ne.jp>.
+1 to release. Great work!
I saw a trivial issue in solr bin package (apache-solr-3.2.0.tgz).
I cannot find any script files for backup/replication (e.g. abc, snappuller, snapinstaller,...).
Is this intentional or missing that I should open a ticket?
(If I remember correctly, apache-solr-1.x.x.tgz included those files.)
I don't think this is a blocker, if it is an issue.
koji
--
http://www.rondhuit.com/en/
(11/05/31 12:54), Robert Muir wrote:
> Please vote to release the artifacts at http://s.apache.org/lusolr32rc2 as 3.2.0
>
> Changes from rc1 are mostly packaging issues that testers found:
> * SOLR-2557 ensure example configuration files have the correct
> LUCENE_MATCH_VERSION
> * SOLR-2558 remove "apache lucene version" from solr changes.txt
> "Versions of major components"
> * SOLR-2559 All solr contrib/*/CHANGES.txt have "3.2-dev" as the
> release header.
> * LUCENE-3009 binary packaging: lucene modules/contribs that
> depend on jars are confusing
> * LUCENE-3154 remove version references from the versioned website
> * LUCENE-3155 possibly improve includes/excludes for packages files
> * LUCENE-3156 remove references to contribs that dont exist from docs
> * LUCENE-3157 packaging is sometimes .tar.gz, sometimes .tgz
> * LUCENE-3158 ensure binary artifacts contain the necessary licensing files
> * LUCENE-3159 lucene benchmark has some unnecessary files
> * LUCENE-3160 lucene source build doesn't work correctly by itself
> from the src dist
> * LUCENE-3161 consider warnings from the source compilation
> * LUCENE-3162 NOTICE.txt refers to .jar files which are not
> included in the binary archives.
> * LUCENE-3163 CHANGES.txt has no release date for 3.1.0
> * Included Changes2Html output
> * KEYS files in both releases (also registered my key with id.apache.org)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Dawid Weiss <da...@cs.put.poznan.pl>.
+1 from me for reasons similar to Andrzej's, although I also won't
have the time to help you out with checking this release. Sorry --
catching up with work after LR.
Dawid
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Michael McCandless
<lu...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> +1 to release RC2!
>
> Awesome work everyone :)
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Please vote to release the artifacts at http://s.apache.org/lusolr32rc2 as 3.2.0
>>
>> Changes from rc1 are mostly packaging issues that testers found:
>> * SOLR-2557 ensure example configuration files have the correct
>> LUCENE_MATCH_VERSION
>> * SOLR-2558 remove "apache lucene version" from solr changes.txt
>> "Versions of major components"
>> * SOLR-2559 All solr contrib/*/CHANGES.txt have "3.2-dev" as the
>> release header.
>> * LUCENE-3009 binary packaging: lucene modules/contribs that
>> depend on jars are confusing
>> * LUCENE-3154 remove version references from the versioned website
>> * LUCENE-3155 possibly improve includes/excludes for packages files
>> * LUCENE-3156 remove references to contribs that dont exist from docs
>> * LUCENE-3157 packaging is sometimes .tar.gz, sometimes .tgz
>> * LUCENE-3158 ensure binary artifacts contain the necessary licensing files
>> * LUCENE-3159 lucene benchmark has some unnecessary files
>> * LUCENE-3160 lucene source build doesn't work correctly by itself
>> from the src dist
>> * LUCENE-3161 consider warnings from the source compilation
>> * LUCENE-3162 NOTICE.txt refers to .jar files which are not
>> included in the binary archives.
>> * LUCENE-3163 CHANGES.txt has no release date for 3.1.0
>> * Included Changes2Html output
>> * KEYS files in both releases (also registered my key with id.apache.org)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
+1 to release RC2!
Awesome work everyone :)
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please vote to release the artifacts at http://s.apache.org/lusolr32rc2 as 3.2.0
>
> Changes from rc1 are mostly packaging issues that testers found:
> * SOLR-2557 ensure example configuration files have the correct
> LUCENE_MATCH_VERSION
> * SOLR-2558 remove "apache lucene version" from solr changes.txt
> "Versions of major components"
> * SOLR-2559 All solr contrib/*/CHANGES.txt have "3.2-dev" as the
> release header.
> * LUCENE-3009 binary packaging: lucene modules/contribs that
> depend on jars are confusing
> * LUCENE-3154 remove version references from the versioned website
> * LUCENE-3155 possibly improve includes/excludes for packages files
> * LUCENE-3156 remove references to contribs that dont exist from docs
> * LUCENE-3157 packaging is sometimes .tar.gz, sometimes .tgz
> * LUCENE-3158 ensure binary artifacts contain the necessary licensing files
> * LUCENE-3159 lucene benchmark has some unnecessary files
> * LUCENE-3160 lucene source build doesn't work correctly by itself
> from the src dist
> * LUCENE-3161 consider warnings from the source compilation
> * LUCENE-3162 NOTICE.txt refers to .jar files which are not
> included in the binary archives.
> * LUCENE-3163 CHANGES.txt has no release date for 3.1.0
> * Included Changes2Html output
> * KEYS files in both releases (also registered my key with id.apache.org)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>.
Opened LUCENE-3165 and LUCENE-3166 to track these two issues. I marked them
blockers for 3.3 so we remember to revisit them beforehand.
Shai
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > BTW, I tried "ant prepare-release" from "src" and it doesn't work b/c of
> > "get-svn-info" which makes sense because this is not a svn checkout. But
> > maybe we can have it not fail on errors? I.e., if I run "ant jar" then
> the
> > .jars are created with this prop in manifest:
> >
> > Implementation Version: 3.2.0 exported
> >
> > somehow it knows it's not a svn checkout, and instead of the revision
> (which
> > appears in the binary pack), it puts 'exported'. Can't we do the same
> here?
> >
>
> we should open a jira issue for this also!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW, I tried "ant prepare-release" from "src" and it doesn't work b/c of
> "get-svn-info" which makes sense because this is not a svn checkout. But
> maybe we can have it not fail on errors? I.e., if I run "ant jar" then the
> .jars are created with this prop in manifest:
>
> Implementation Version: 3.2.0 exported
>
> somehow it knows it's not a svn checkout, and instead of the revision (which
> appears in the binary pack), it puts 'exported'. Can't we do the same here?
>
we should open a jira issue for this also!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>.
>
> Another alternative that wouldn't involve us integrating forrest into
> the build would be to nuke docs/ and rename it to
> src/site/generated_content or something. Then when you run ant it
> copies this to build/docs.
>
+1. If site is built under src/site/build, we can have "ant docs" or
something that generates jdocs and puts them under build/docs + it copies
src/site/build under build/docs.
BTW, I tried "ant prepare-release" from "src" and it doesn't work b/c of
"get-svn-info" which makes sense because this is not a svn checkout. But
maybe we can have it not fail on errors? I.e., if I run "ant jar" then the
.jars are created with this prop in manifest:
Implementation Version: 3.2.0 exported
somehow it knows it's not a svn checkout, and instead of the revision (which
appears in the binary pack), it puts 'exported'. Can't we do the same here?
Shai
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think it's a showstopper b/c the docs work fine in the binary
> > release, though it'd be good if we can fix that somehow for future
> releases.
> > I don't like inconsistencies. Maybe we should remove all "docs" and
> generate
> > them by an Ant target?
>
> Lets open an issue for this?
> Really this is nothing new (I checked lucene 2.4 again).
>
> If a user runs 'ant prepare-release' from a source dist, they will get
> a usable 'docs' folder.
> But its confusing that in SVN we have 'docs' (which is in fact
> generated code from src/site).
>
> It would be way less confusing if docs/ didnt exist at all, but when
> running the build task, forrest would run and put this stuff in
> build/docs, then any src user/svn consumer wouldnt see these pre-built
> docs and have false hopes.
> Another alternative that wouldn't involve us integrating forrest into
> the build would be to nuke docs/ and rename it to
> src/site/generated_content or something. Then when you run ant it
> copies this to build/docs.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think it's a showstopper b/c the docs work fine in the binary
> release, though it'd be good if we can fix that somehow for future releases.
> I don't like inconsistencies. Maybe we should remove all "docs" and generate
> them by an Ant target?
Lets open an issue for this?
Really this is nothing new (I checked lucene 2.4 again).
If a user runs 'ant prepare-release' from a source dist, they will get
a usable 'docs' folder.
But its confusing that in SVN we have 'docs' (which is in fact
generated code from src/site).
It would be way less confusing if docs/ didnt exist at all, but when
running the build task, forrest would run and put this stuff in
build/docs, then any src user/svn consumer wouldnt see these pre-built
docs and have false hopes.
Another alternative that wouldn't involve us integrating forrest into
the build would be to nuke docs/ and rename it to
src/site/generated_content or something. Then when you run ant it
copies this to build/docs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Andrzej Bialecki <ab...@getopt.org>.
On 5/31/11 2:01 PM, Shai Erera wrote:
> I checked sums and sigs, ran tests and briefly scanned CHANGES, README etc.
>
> One thing I found is that the 'src' package includes an "index.html" and
> a "docs" folder. If you load index.html in the browser, almost all the
> links work, except for the Javadocs, because they are not part of the
> 'src' package (which is ok). But then if you "ant javadocs", they are
> created under "build/docs" and not "docs". so links still don't work.
>
> I don't think it's a showstopper b/c the docs work fine in the binary
> release, though it'd be good if we can fix that somehow for future
> releases. I don't like inconsistencies. Maybe we should remove all
> "docs" and generate them by an Ant target?
>
> Anyway, given that, here is my +1 for RC2.
I won't have time to test this RC2, but I'm +1 on principle - it passes
tests, contains many improvements, and is awaited eagerly by the
community :)
--
Best regards,
Andrzej Bialecki <><
___. ___ ___ ___ _ _ __________________________________
[__ || __|__/|__||\/| Information Retrieval, Semantic Web
___|||__|| \| || | Embedded Unix, System Integration
http://www.sigram.com Contact: info at sigram dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>.
I checked sums and sigs, ran tests and briefly scanned CHANGES, README etc.
One thing I found is that the 'src' package includes an "index.html" and a
"docs" folder. If you load index.html in the browser, almost all the links
work, except for the Javadocs, because they are not part of the 'src'
package (which is ok). But then if you "ant javadocs", they are created
under "build/docs" and not "docs". so links still don't work.
I don't think it's a showstopper b/c the docs work fine in the binary
release, though it'd be good if we can fix that somehow for future releases.
I don't like inconsistencies. Maybe we should remove all "docs" and generate
them by an Ant target?
Anyway, given that, here is my +1 for RC2.
Shai
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Doron Cohen <cd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Man this is impressive!
> Thanks for fixing all the issues!
>
> +1 for 3.2 rc2.
>
> What I checked:
> * signatures and sums on package files (solr, lucene)
> * compared src to bin packages (solr, lucene)
> * tests with ant (solr, lucene)
> * demo (solr)
> * docs glimpse (lucene)
>
> A thought for future releases:
> * single src package (currently solr packs both lucene and solr in the src
> pack)
>
> Doron
>
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Steven A Rowe <sa...@syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> Holy crap, Robert, you cranked through a huge number of issues to put this
>> out. Kudos!
>>
>> I'll take a look at RC2 in the next couple of days.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 11:54 PM
>> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > Subject: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
>> >
>> > Please vote to release the artifacts at http://s.apache.org/lusolr32rc2
>> > as 3.2.0
>> >
>> > Changes from rc1 are mostly packaging issues that testers found:
>> > * SOLR-2557 ensure example configuration files have the correct
>> > LUCENE_MATCH_VERSION
>> > * SOLR-2558 remove "apache lucene version" from solr changes.txt
>> > "Versions of major components"
>> > * SOLR-2559 All solr contrib/*/CHANGES.txt have "3.2-dev" as the
>> > release header.
>> > * LUCENE-3009 binary packaging: lucene modules/contribs that
>> > depend on jars are confusing
>> > * LUCENE-3154 remove version references from the versioned website
>> > * LUCENE-3155 possibly improve includes/excludes for packages files
>> > * LUCENE-3156 remove references to contribs that dont exist from
>> docs
>> > * LUCENE-3157 packaging is sometimes .tar.gz, sometimes .tgz
>> > * LUCENE-3158 ensure binary artifacts contain the necessary
>> licensing
>> > files
>> > * LUCENE-3159 lucene benchmark has some unnecessary files
>> > * LUCENE-3160 lucene source build doesn't work correctly by itself
>> > from the src dist
>> > * LUCENE-3161 consider warnings from the source compilation
>> > * LUCENE-3162 NOTICE.txt refers to .jar files which are not
>> > included in the binary archives.
>> > * LUCENE-3163 CHANGES.txt has no release date for 3.1.0
>> > * Included Changes2Html output
>> > * KEYS files in both releases (also registered my key with
>> id.apache.org)
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Doron Cohen <cd...@gmail.com>.
Man this is impressive!
Thanks for fixing all the issues!
+1 for 3.2 rc2.
What I checked:
* signatures and sums on package files (solr, lucene)
* compared src to bin packages (solr, lucene)
* tests with ant (solr, lucene)
* demo (solr)
* docs glimpse (lucene)
A thought for future releases:
* single src package (currently solr packs both lucene and solr in the src
pack)
Doron
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Steven A Rowe <sa...@syr.edu> wrote:
> Holy crap, Robert, you cranked through a huge number of issues to put this
> out. Kudos!
>
> I'll take a look at RC2 in the next couple of days.
>
> Steve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 11:54 PM
> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
> >
> > Please vote to release the artifacts at http://s.apache.org/lusolr32rc2
> > as 3.2.0
> >
> > Changes from rc1 are mostly packaging issues that testers found:
> > * SOLR-2557 ensure example configuration files have the correct
> > LUCENE_MATCH_VERSION
> > * SOLR-2558 remove "apache lucene version" from solr changes.txt
> > "Versions of major components"
> > * SOLR-2559 All solr contrib/*/CHANGES.txt have "3.2-dev" as the
> > release header.
> > * LUCENE-3009 binary packaging: lucene modules/contribs that
> > depend on jars are confusing
> > * LUCENE-3154 remove version references from the versioned website
> > * LUCENE-3155 possibly improve includes/excludes for packages files
> > * LUCENE-3156 remove references to contribs that dont exist from docs
> > * LUCENE-3157 packaging is sometimes .tar.gz, sometimes .tgz
> > * LUCENE-3158 ensure binary artifacts contain the necessary licensing
> > files
> > * LUCENE-3159 lucene benchmark has some unnecessary files
> > * LUCENE-3160 lucene source build doesn't work correctly by itself
> > from the src dist
> > * LUCENE-3161 consider warnings from the source compilation
> > * LUCENE-3162 NOTICE.txt refers to .jar files which are not
> > included in the binary archives.
> > * LUCENE-3163 CHANGES.txt has no release date for 3.1.0
> > * Included Changes2Html output
> > * KEYS files in both releases (also registered my key with id.apache.org
> )
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
RE: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Steven A Rowe <sa...@syr.edu>.
Holy crap, Robert, you cranked through a huge number of issues to put this out. Kudos!
I'll take a look at RC2 in the next couple of days.
Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 11:54 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
>
> Please vote to release the artifacts at http://s.apache.org/lusolr32rc2
> as 3.2.0
>
> Changes from rc1 are mostly packaging issues that testers found:
> * SOLR-2557 ensure example configuration files have the correct
> LUCENE_MATCH_VERSION
> * SOLR-2558 remove "apache lucene version" from solr changes.txt
> "Versions of major components"
> * SOLR-2559 All solr contrib/*/CHANGES.txt have "3.2-dev" as the
> release header.
> * LUCENE-3009 binary packaging: lucene modules/contribs that
> depend on jars are confusing
> * LUCENE-3154 remove version references from the versioned website
> * LUCENE-3155 possibly improve includes/excludes for packages files
> * LUCENE-3156 remove references to contribs that dont exist from docs
> * LUCENE-3157 packaging is sometimes .tar.gz, sometimes .tgz
> * LUCENE-3158 ensure binary artifacts contain the necessary licensing
> files
> * LUCENE-3159 lucene benchmark has some unnecessary files
> * LUCENE-3160 lucene source build doesn't work correctly by itself
> from the src dist
> * LUCENE-3161 consider warnings from the source compilation
> * LUCENE-3162 NOTICE.txt refers to .jar files which are not
> included in the binary archives.
> * LUCENE-3163 CHANGES.txt has no release date for 3.1.0
> * Included Changes2Html output
> * KEYS files in both releases (also registered my key with id.apache.org)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Ryan McKinley <ry...@gmail.com>.
+1
I walked through the solr example/tutorial and things look good.
Thanks for getting this together!
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please vote to release the artifacts at http://s.apache.org/lusolr32rc2 as 3.2.0
>
> Changes from rc1 are mostly packaging issues that testers found:
> * SOLR-2557 ensure example configuration files have the correct
> LUCENE_MATCH_VERSION
> * SOLR-2558 remove "apache lucene version" from solr changes.txt
> "Versions of major components"
> * SOLR-2559 All solr contrib/*/CHANGES.txt have "3.2-dev" as the
> release header.
> * LUCENE-3009 binary packaging: lucene modules/contribs that
> depend on jars are confusing
> * LUCENE-3154 remove version references from the versioned website
> * LUCENE-3155 possibly improve includes/excludes for packages files
> * LUCENE-3156 remove references to contribs that dont exist from docs
> * LUCENE-3157 packaging is sometimes .tar.gz, sometimes .tgz
> * LUCENE-3158 ensure binary artifacts contain the necessary licensing files
> * LUCENE-3159 lucene benchmark has some unnecessary files
> * LUCENE-3160 lucene source build doesn't work correctly by itself
> from the src dist
> * LUCENE-3161 consider warnings from the source compilation
> * LUCENE-3162 NOTICE.txt refers to .jar files which are not
> included in the binary archives.
> * LUCENE-3163 CHANGES.txt has no release date for 3.1.0
> * Included Changes2Html output
> * KEYS files in both releases (also registered my key with id.apache.org)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr release 3.2 (take 2)
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1 to release.
On May 30, 2011, at 11:54 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> Please vote to release the artifacts at http://s.apache.org/lusolr32rc2 as 3.2.0
>
> Changes from rc1 are mostly packaging issues that testers found:
> * SOLR-2557 ensure example configuration files have the correct
> LUCENE_MATCH_VERSION
> * SOLR-2558 remove "apache lucene version" from solr changes.txt
> "Versions of major components"
> * SOLR-2559 All solr contrib/*/CHANGES.txt have "3.2-dev" as the
> release header.
> * LUCENE-3009 binary packaging: lucene modules/contribs that
> depend on jars are confusing
> * LUCENE-3154 remove version references from the versioned website
> * LUCENE-3155 possibly improve includes/excludes for packages files
> * LUCENE-3156 remove references to contribs that dont exist from docs
> * LUCENE-3157 packaging is sometimes .tar.gz, sometimes .tgz
> * LUCENE-3158 ensure binary artifacts contain the necessary licensing files
> * LUCENE-3159 lucene benchmark has some unnecessary files
> * LUCENE-3160 lucene source build doesn't work correctly by itself
> from the src dist
> * LUCENE-3161 consider warnings from the source compilation
> * LUCENE-3162 NOTICE.txt refers to .jar files which are not
> included in the binary archives.
> * LUCENE-3163 CHANGES.txt has no release date for 3.1.0
> * Included Changes2Html output
> * KEYS files in both releases (also registered my key with id.apache.org)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com
BERLIN BUZZWORDS JUNE 6-7TH, 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org