You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> on 2009/06/16 23:22:31 UTC
Lucene 2.9 Again
My email client lost the original thread:
So far, both Mike and I have voiced our desire to get a 2.9 release out
the door soon. Java 1.5 awaits us on the other side :) No one else has
really weighed in though. I've jumped in an started to squeeze the 2.9
JIRA list with Mike anyway.
Is there anyone against such a move at this point in time? I'll take
silence to mean your on board, and I'll continue to squeeze the JIRA
list with regard to patches that are not moving forward.
As it is, I think we are in fairly good shape. There are about 30 issue
left, but most are mostly complete or simple and only a few still have
major complications to resolve. All have a reasonable assignee as well.
If you think we should release 2.9 soon and you are assigned to an issue
that you cant get to reasonable soon, I'm going to ask again that you
dis-assign yourself.
Also a reminder, as Mike mentioned, if there are issues out there that
should be marked 2.9 and are not, please move them to 2.9.
Or please voice your opinion as to why we should hold off.
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Mark Miller<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So far, both Mike and I have voiced our desire to get a 2.9 release out the
> door soon.
+1
My silence was mainly because I wasn't sure I had too much time to do
anything on it myself (outside issues assigned to me of course).
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
> Java 1.5 awaits us on the other side :) No one else has really
> weighed in though. I've jumped in an started to squeeze the 2.9 JIRA list
> with Mike anyway.
>
> Is there anyone against such a move at this point in time? I'll take silence
> to mean your on board, and I'll continue to squeeze the JIRA list with
> regard to patches that are not moving forward.
>
> As it is, I think we are in fairly good shape. There are about 30 issue
> left, but most are mostly complete or simple and only a few still have major
> complications to resolve. All have a reasonable assignee as well.
>
> If you think we should release 2.9 soon and you are assigned to an issue
> that you cant get to reasonable soon, I'm going to ask again that you
> dis-assign yourself.
>
> Also a reminder, as Mike mentioned, if there are issues out there that
> should be marked 2.9 and are not, please move them to 2.9.
>
> Or please voice your opinion as to why we should hold off.
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Michael
McCandless<lu...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> I would love to see function queries consolidated between Solr and
> Lucene! I think it's a prime example of duplicated and then diverged
> sources between Lucene and Solr...
>
> And it's fabulous that you are "volunteering", Simon ;) We have
> precious few volunteers that stride both communities well enough, and
> have the itch, to do this.
>
> So I'd love to see progress made towards this.... but I also think
> it's a little too big to hold up 2.9 for.
Yeah I agree!
>
> The back compat requirement is certainly important, but I would assume
> workable, ie it should not hold up this consolidation...
I think this is a step by step task and it should be done with back
compat in mind. I think it is not crucial to have it in 2.9 as solr
might be keen to get 1.5 lucene releases integrated too. So its not a
big deal if it gets integrated with 3.* releases.
>
> Mike
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Simon
> Willnauer<si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Yonik
>> Seeley<yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Simon
>>> Willnauer<si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> I was thinking of adding a patch for
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1085
>>>
>>> That's *way* too big of an issue and it breaks back compat in Solr (to
>>> change from Solr's to Lucene's version - I know many people who have
>>> implemented and plugged in their own functions.)
>> Do you have a pointer to back compat policy in solr or is it the same
>> as in Lucene?!
>>
>> simon
>>>
>>> -Yonik
>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Otis Gospodnetic <ot...@yahoo.com>.
Me, too. I noticed Grant mentioned this in one of the long emails/threads, too, a few weeks back, but I didn't want to pull out just that piece and disturb the thread. And I bet people outside Lucene would love to have search-independent set of chainable tokenizers, token filters, and such.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
----- Original Message ----
> From: Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 10:04:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
>
> I agree.
>
> I'm picturing some hopefully-not-that-distant future when we have a
> queries "module" and analysis "module" that live quite separately from
> Lucene & Solr's "core", and committers from both Solr and Lucene would
> work on it.
>
> Mike
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Grant Ingersollwrote:
> >
> > On Jun 17, 2009, at 4:42 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
> >
> >> I would love to see function queries consolidated between Solr and
> >> Lucene! I think it's a prime example of duplicated and then diverged
> >> sources between Lucene and Solr...
> >
> > The primary reason it's diverged is it gets a lot of attention on Solr and
> > near zero in Lucene. You rarely see someone on java-user ask about function
> > queries. In Solr, it's a regular solution to many problems. So, just like
> > the analysis problem, it strikes me as one of those areas that if it is
> > going to be done, and maintained, then Solr committers need write access.
> >
> > -Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
Let's not forget Nutch... Also, for that matter, Mahout uses Lucene's
Analysis and Core (in fact, I just committed MAHOUT-126 which allows
one to create Vectors from a Lucene index!), although those are just
as consumers, I doubt there is a need for Mahout committers to change
Lucene.
On Jun 17, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
> I agree.
>
> I'm picturing some hopefully-not-that-distant future when we have a
> queries "module" and analysis "module" that live quite separately from
> Lucene & Solr's "core", and committers from both Solr and Lucene would
> work on it.
>
> Mike
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Grant
> Ingersoll<gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 17, 2009, at 4:42 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
>>
>>> I would love to see function queries consolidated between Solr and
>>> Lucene! I think it's a prime example of duplicated and then
>>> diverged
>>> sources between Lucene and Solr...
>>
>> The primary reason it's diverged is it gets a lot of attention on
>> Solr and
>> near zero in Lucene. You rarely see someone on java-user ask about
>> function
>> queries. In Solr, it's a regular solution to many problems. So,
>> just like
>> the analysis problem, it strikes me as one of those areas that if
>> it is
>> going to be done, and maintained, then Solr committers need write
>> access.
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com/
Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids)
using Solr/Lucene:
http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
I agree.
I'm picturing some hopefully-not-that-distant future when we have a
queries "module" and analysis "module" that live quite separately from
Lucene & Solr's "core", and committers from both Solr and Lucene would
work on it.
Mike
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Grant Ingersoll<gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Jun 17, 2009, at 4:42 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
>
>> I would love to see function queries consolidated between Solr and
>> Lucene! I think it's a prime example of duplicated and then diverged
>> sources between Lucene and Solr...
>
> The primary reason it's diverged is it gets a lot of attention on Solr and
> near zero in Lucene. You rarely see someone on java-user ask about function
> queries. In Solr, it's a regular solution to many problems. So, just like
> the analysis problem, it strikes me as one of those areas that if it is
> going to be done, and maintained, then Solr committers need write access.
>
> -Grant
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Jun 17, 2009, at 4:42 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
> I would love to see function queries consolidated between Solr and
> Lucene! I think it's a prime example of duplicated and then diverged
> sources between Lucene and Solr...
The primary reason it's diverged is it gets a lot of attention on Solr
and near zero in Lucene. You rarely see someone on java-user ask
about function queries. In Solr, it's a regular solution to many
problems. So, just like the analysis problem, it strikes me as one of
those areas that if it is going to be done, and maintained, then Solr
committers need write access.
-Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
I would love to see function queries consolidated between Solr and
Lucene! I think it's a prime example of duplicated and then diverged
sources between Lucene and Solr...
And it's fabulous that you are "volunteering", Simon ;) We have
precious few volunteers that stride both communities well enough, and
have the itch, to do this.
So I'd love to see progress made towards this.... but I also think
it's a little too big to hold up 2.9 for.
The back compat requirement is certainly important, but I would assume
workable, ie it should not hold up this consolidation...
Mike
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Simon
Willnauer<si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Yonik
> Seeley<yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Simon
>> Willnauer<si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> I was thinking of adding a patch for
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1085
>>
>> That's *way* too big of an issue and it breaks back compat in Solr (to
>> change from Solr's to Lucene's version - I know many people who have
>> implemented and plugged in their own functions.)
> Do you have a pointer to back compat policy in solr or is it the same
> as in Lucene?!
>
> simon
>>
>> -Yonik
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Yonik
Seeley<yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Simon
> Willnauer<si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I was thinking of adding a patch for
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1085
>
> That's *way* too big of an issue and it breaks back compat in Solr (to
> change from Solr's to Lucene's version - I know many people who have
> implemented and plugged in their own functions.)
Do you have a pointer to back compat policy in solr or is it the same
as in Lucene?!
simon
>
> -Yonik
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Simon
Willnauer<si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I was thinking of adding a patch for
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1085
That's *way* too big of an issue and it breaks back compat in Solr (to
change from Solr's to Lucene's version - I know many people who have
implemented and plugged in their own functions.)
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Mark Miller<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My email client lost the original thread:
>
> So far, both Mike and I have voiced our desire to get a 2.9 release out the
> door soon. Java 1.5 awaits us on the other side :) No one else has really
> weighed in though. I've jumped in an started to squeeze the 2.9 JIRA list
> with Mike anyway.
>
> Is there anyone against such a move at this point in time? I'll take silence
> to mean your on board, and I'll continue to squeeze the JIRA list with
> regard to patches that are not moving forward.
+1
>
> As it is, I think we are in fairly good shape. There are about 30 issue
> left, but most are mostly complete or simple and only a few still have major
> complications to resolve. All have a reasonable assignee as well.
>
> If you think we should release 2.9 soon and you are assigned to an issue
> that you cant get to reasonable soon, I'm going to ask again that you
> dis-assign yourself.
>
> Also a reminder, as Mike mentioned, if there are issues out there that
> should be marked 2.9 and are not, please move them to 2.9.
I was thinking of adding a patch for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1085 and subsequently
help to integrate it into solr. I try to get it done as soon as
possible. I remember yonik mentioned that 2.9 could make it into solr
1.4 so this would be a good opportunity. If not i will just do it for
3.0
simon
>
> Or please voice your opinion as to why we should hold off.
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
> Mark Miller wrote:
> > Duck Uwe :)
> Clarification: Duck next time. As long as I have the time to do it
> (meaning, if it doesnt take as much time as it looks) , I will do it :)
What a hell! OK, next time...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
Mark Miller wrote:
> Duck Uwe :)
Clarification: Duck next time. As long as I have the time to do it
(meaning, if it doesnt take as much time as it looks) , I will do it :)
- Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 7:16 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Mark Miller<ma...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > There are parts that aren't strictly part of the release process IMO -
> > things like maven seem optional.
>
> -1. Maven support is not optional.
>
> +1 for more automation. For the record, once setup, Maven (as opposed
> to Ant) release (i.e. on Mahout http://cwiki.apache.org/MAHOUT/how-to-
> release.html)
> consists of far fewer steps. The only manual ones after one-time
> setup are the announcements and the copy from staging to release (and
> even that, I think, can be done better using Nexus). Note, I'm not
> voting to change to Maven, just saying there is room for automation.
Please no maven!!!!! :(
Uwe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Jun 17, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Grant
> Ingersoll<gs...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 2009, at 7:16 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>>> There are parts that aren't strictly part of the release process
>>> IMO -
>>> things like maven seem optional.
>>
>> -1. Maven support is not optional.
>
> I can't always follow Lucene closely, but i'm pretty sure it never
> became mandatory in Solr, and it's never been a part of any kind of
> ASF release requirements.
>
> It's nice if the release manager feels like doing it... but it also
> seems like it can be done after the fact (for maven or other release
> mechanisms) by those who care more about those.
It's pretty much the only way I consume Lucene and Solr anymore...
So, yeah, I'll make sure it happens. In Solr and Lucene, generating
the artifacts is automatic anyway. The only manual part is copying
them up to the server. I think people can handle doing an scp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Grant Ingersoll<gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 7:16 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>> There are parts that aren't strictly part of the release process IMO -
>> things like maven seem optional.
>
> -1. Maven support is not optional.
I can't always follow Lucene closely, but i'm pretty sure it never
became mandatory in Solr, and it's never been a part of any kind of
ASF release requirements.
It's nice if the release manager feels like doing it... but it also
seems like it can be done after the fact (for maven or other release
mechanisms) by those who care more about those.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Jun 16, 2009, at 7:16 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Mark Miller<ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> There are parts that aren't strictly part of the release process IMO -
> things like maven seem optional.
-1. Maven support is not optional.
+1 for more automation. For the record, once setup, Maven (as opposed
to Ant) release (i.e. on Mahout http://cwiki.apache.org/MAHOUT/how-to-release.html)
consists of far fewer steps. The only manual ones after one-time
setup are the announcements and the copy from staging to release (and
even that, I think, can be done better using Nexus). Note, I'm not
voting to change to Maven, just saying there is room for automation.
-Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Yonik Seeley<ys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Mark Miller<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've looked at the release todo wiki and I am still having nightmares.
>
> Indeed - it's gotten 5 times longer since the last time I did Lucene or Solr.
> There are parts that aren't strictly part of the release process IMO -
> things like maven seem optional.
For better or worse, it gets bigger whenever someone (recently, me!)
makes a silly mistake and then goes and updates the release todo ;)
I do think it could use some consolidating, though...
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Yonik Seeley <ys...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Mark Miller<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've looked at the release todo wiki and I am still having nightmares.
Indeed - it's gotten 5 times longer since the last time I did Lucene or Solr.
There are parts that aren't strictly part of the release process IMO -
things like maven seem optional.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
Michael Busch wrote:
> Cool, seems like Mark is volunteering to be the 2.9 release manager ;)
I may look stupid, but I saw that one coming. I briefly considered
opening a 2.9 JIRA issue, assigned and titled "Make Lucene release
processes one click", but I thought maybe I better not bring attention
to the issue ;) I've looked at the release todo wiki and I am still
having nightmares. It really gets to be too much at the step where you
dance the hokey poky while yelling out all of Apaches public encryption
keys. We've almost built a tradition of the new guy getting stuck with
it though. Duck Uwe :)
>
> I need to get the TokenStream API changes in and ideally LUCENE-1448.
>
> How soon is soon? Code freeze in 2-3 weeks or so maybe? Then 7-10 days
> testing, so 2.9 should be out mid July? Sounds reasonable?
+1.
>
> Michael
>
> On 6/16/09 2:22 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>> My email client lost the original thread:
>>
>> So far, both Mike and I have voiced our desire to get a 2.9 release
>> out the door soon. Java 1.5 awaits us on the other side :) No one
>> else has really weighed in though. I've jumped in an started to
>> squeeze the 2.9 JIRA list with Mike anyway.
>>
>> Is there anyone against such a move at this point in time? I'll take
>> silence to mean your on board, and I'll continue to squeeze the JIRA
>> list with regard to patches that are not moving forward.
>>
>> As it is, I think we are in fairly good shape. There are about 30
>> issue left, but most are mostly complete or simple and only a few
>> still have major complications to resolve. All have a reasonable
>> assignee as well.
>>
>> If you think we should release 2.9 soon and you are assigned to an
>> issue that you cant get to reasonable soon, I'm going to ask again
>> that you dis-assign yourself.
>>
>> Also a reminder, as Mike mentioned, if there are issues out there
>> that should be marked 2.9 and are not, please move them to 2.9.
>>
>> Or please voice your opinion as to why we should hold off.
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Michael Busch <bu...@gmail.com>.
+1
Michael
On 6/17/09 10:32 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Michael Busch wrote:
>> We should just not put more items in the 2.9 list anymore (except bug
>> fixes of course) and then fix the 30 issues and don't rush them too
>> much. If it takes until end of July I think that's acceptable. A good
>> quality of the release should be highest priority in my opinion.
>>
>> Michael
> I agree. Our approach so far has not been to rush the issues that are
> outstanding, but to pressure a move to 3.1 if you don't think you can
> finish it reasonably soon. I'd expect the committers to stick with
> their normal standards for committing code, and I plan too as well. On
> the other hand, its also probably not a great idea for a bunch of huge
> changes to hit trunk right before release with no time to go though
> dev use. So I still think that, unless its an important issue for 2.9
> speficially, if you can't finish it by fairly early julyish - you
> should push to 3.1.
>
> - Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
Michael Busch wrote:
> We should just not put more items in the 2.9 list anymore (except bug
> fixes of course) and then fix the 30 issues and don't rush them too
> much. If it takes until end of July I think that's acceptable. A good
> quality of the release should be highest priority in my opinion.
>
> Michael
I agree. Our approach so far has not been to rush the issues that are
outstanding, but to pressure a move to 3.1 if you don't think you can
finish it reasonably soon. I'd expect the committers to stick with their
normal standards for committing code, and I plan too as well. On the
other hand, its also probably not a great idea for a bunch of huge
changes to hit trunk right before release with no time to go though dev
use. So I still think that, unless its an important issue for 2.9
speficially, if you can't finish it by fairly early julyish - you should
push to 3.1.
- Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Michael Busch <bu...@gmail.com>.
We should just not put more items in the 2.9 list anymore (except bug
fixes of course) and then fix the 30 issues and don't rush them too
much. If it takes until end of July I think that's acceptable. A good
quality of the release should be highest priority in my opinion.
Michael
On 6/17/09 10:09 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Michael Busch wrote:
>> wanted to get 2.9 out really really soon.
>>
> really, really is probably not totally accurate. I just know how
> things can get drawn out. Even still, we have 30 some issues to
> resolve. If we don't make a drive though, when will 2.9 come out? Next
> fall at the earliest? Later? So much goodness to give to the users out
> there already. And Java 1.5 waiting for us. And removing all of these
> deprecations. We don't have to release tomorrow, but lets get this out
> there!
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
Michael Busch wrote:
> wanted to get 2.9 out really really soon.
>
really, really is probably not totally accurate. I just know how things
can get drawn out. Even still, we have 30 some issues to resolve. If we
don't make a drive though, when will 2.9 come out? Next fall at the
earliest? Later? So much goodness to give to the users out there
already. And Java 1.5 waiting for us. And removing all of these
deprecations. We don't have to release tomorrow, but lets get this out
there!
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Michael Busch <bu...@gmail.com>.
I'm happy to hear that :)
I suggested 2-3 weeks to prevent the schedule from being even tighter,
as it sounded like you guys wanted to get 2.9 out really really soon.
I'm really busy the rest of June and will have much more time for Lucene
in July. So if we could wait until end of July before we do the code
freeze, and get 2.9 out early August, that'd mean much less sleep
deprivation for me! And the likelihood that I'll get all my stuff in
would be much higher...
Michael
On 6/17/09 5:43 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Michael Busch<bu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> How soon is soon? Code freeze in 2-3 weeks or so maybe? Then 7-10 days
>> testing, so 2.9 should be out mid July? Sounds reasonable?
>>
>
> This schedule might be tight for me... I'm "on vacation" for the week
> starting Jun 29. Hopefully I can most of my issues done before then,
> but that's a week and a half left at this point :)
>
> Mike
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Jason
Rutherglen<ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I pretty much find any excuse to go and write stuff in Python
>
> There's Scala...
I've only read about it so far but it does look good.
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Jason Rutherglen <ja...@gmail.com>.
> I pretty much find any excuse to go and write stuff in Python
There's Scala...
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Michael McCandless <
lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Mark Miller<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Michael Busch wrote:
> >>
> >> Everyone who is unhappy with the release TODO's, go back in your mail
> >> archive to the 2.2 release and check how many tedious little changes we
> made
> >> to improve the release quality. And besides the maven stuff, there is
> not
> >> really more to do compared to pre-2.2, it's just documented in a more
> >> verbose (=RM-friendly) way.
> >
> > I didn't mean to imply anything untowards :) I'm grateful for the work
> you
> > guys have put into making it all more friendly. I know I have seen many
> of
> > Mike M's wiki updates on this page too, and I've always been sure its for
> > the better.
>
> Well, I made lots of silly mistakes during my releases :) ("if you're
> not making mistakes, you're not trying hard enough")
>
> So every time I made a mistake I went and updated it.
>
> > Even still, when I look at the process, I remember why I clung to Windows
> > for so long :) Now I'm happily on Ubuntu and can still usually avoid such
> > "fun" work :)
>
> The next step after Ubuntu is OS X, of course ;)
>
> > I'll happily soldier on though. I just wish it was all in Java :)
>
> I pretty much find any excuse to go and write stuff in Python ;) So,
> I wrote a Python script that goes & signs/verifies sigs on all the
> Maven artifacts.
>
> Mike
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Mark Miller<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Busch wrote:
>>
>> Everyone who is unhappy with the release TODO's, go back in your mail
>> archive to the 2.2 release and check how many tedious little changes we made
>> to improve the release quality. And besides the maven stuff, there is not
>> really more to do compared to pre-2.2, it's just documented in a more
>> verbose (=RM-friendly) way.
>
> I didn't mean to imply anything untowards :) I'm grateful for the work you
> guys have put into making it all more friendly. I know I have seen many of
> Mike M's wiki updates on this page too, and I've always been sure its for
> the better.
Well, I made lots of silly mistakes during my releases :) ("if you're
not making mistakes, you're not trying hard enough")
So every time I made a mistake I went and updated it.
> Even still, when I look at the process, I remember why I clung to Windows
> for so long :) Now I'm happily on Ubuntu and can still usually avoid such
> "fun" work :)
The next step after Ubuntu is OS X, of course ;)
> I'll happily soldier on though. I just wish it was all in Java :)
I pretty much find any excuse to go and write stuff in Python ;) So,
I wrote a Python script that goes & signs/verifies sigs on all the
Maven artifacts.
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
Michael Busch wrote:
>
> Everyone who is unhappy with the release TODO's, go back in your mail
> archive to the 2.2 release and check how many tedious little changes
> we made to improve the release quality. And besides the maven stuff,
> there is not really more to do compared to pre-2.2, it's just
> documented in a more verbose (=RM-friendly) way.
I didn't mean to imply anything untowards :) I'm grateful for the work
you guys have put into making it all more friendly. I know I have seen
many of Mike M's wiki updates on this page too, and I've always been
sure its for the better.
Even still, when I look at the process, I remember why I clung to
Windows for so long :) Now I'm happily on Ubuntu and can still usually
avoid such "fun" work :)
I'll happily soldier on though. I just wish it was all in Java :)
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Michael Busch <bu...@gmail.com>.
That means the release frequency should not exceed the new-committer
frequency. :)
On 6/17/09 10:09 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Michael Busch wrote:
>>
>> One?!? I did 2.2, 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2!
>>
> What can you do ... there was no new guy to relieve you :)
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
Michael Busch wrote:
>
> One?!? I did 2.2, 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2!
>
What can you do ... there was no new guy to relieve you :)
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Michael Busch <bu...@gmail.com>.
On 6/17/09 6:23 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> I have a special gift in not being clear.
>
> I was just saying "be prepared, your turn is coming ;) "
>
> But I havn't done a release myself - we don't release that often
> despite discussion that we should release more often every year or so.
>
> I did notice though, that Mike did the release right after joining,
> and Michael did a release right after joining, and so ... looks like I
> am next in line followed by you.
>
One?!? I did 2.2, 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2!
Everyone who is unhappy with the release TODO's, go back in your mail
archive to the 2.2 release and check how many tedious little changes we
made to improve the release quality. And besides the maven stuff, there
is not really more to do compared to pre-2.2, it's just documented in a
more verbose (=RM-friendly) way.
The maven stuff is also pretty simple... just for signing the artifacts
I hacked a tool, because that gets tedious otherwise. When we're at that
point I can try to dig it up... I think Mike has such a tool too.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
I have a special gift in not being clear.
I was just saying "be prepared, your turn is coming ;) "
But I havn't done a release myself - we don't release that often despite
discussion that we should release more often every year or so.
I did notice though, that Mike did the release right after joining, and
Michael did a release right after joining, and so ... looks like I am
next in line followed by you.
I'd be happy to split some of the work if its possible though - then
perhaps we can both get our feet wet without having the full load of
that wiki. I'm up for either way. Looks like we have some time to work
it out.
- Mark
Uwe Schindler wrote:
>> Uwe Schindler wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe Mark helps me and I can do
>>> it alone the next time, if I have to? :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Tag team effort ? It will be my first release to, so that would be great !
>>
>
> Ah ok, I interpreted your mail different yesterday (but it was 1 or 2 am in
> Germany...).
>
> Uwe
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
> Uwe Schindler wrote:
> > Maybe Mark helps me and I can do
> > it alone the next time, if I have to? :-)
> >
> Tag team effort ? It will be my first release to, so that would be great !
Ah ok, I interpreted your mail different yesterday (but it was 1 or 2 am in
Germany...).
Uwe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
Uwe Schindler wrote:
> Maybe Mark helps me and I can do
> it alone the next time, if I have to? :-)
>
Tag team effort ? It will be my first release to, so that would be great !
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
I tend also to a little bit later; maybe we need more discussions about
NumericField and NumericSortField, especially between the two fractions Mike
vs. Yonik :-)
After finishing the TokenStream simplification and optimization, I will now
again start rewriting of javadocs for trie and hopefully I can commit in a
day-or-two(TM).
Maybe start RCs in second quarter of July? Maybe Mark helps me and I can do
it alone the next time, if I have to? :-)
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael McCandless [mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:43 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Michael Busch<bu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How soon is soon? Code freeze in 2-3 weeks or so maybe? Then 7-10 days
> > testing, so 2.9 should be out mid July? Sounds reasonable?
>
> This schedule might be tight for me... I'm "on vacation" for the week
> starting Jun 29. Hopefully I can most of my issues done before then,
> but that's a week and a half left at this point :)
>
> Mike
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Michael Busch<bu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How soon is soon? Code freeze in 2-3 weeks or so maybe? Then 7-10 days
> testing, so 2.9 should be out mid July? Sounds reasonable?
This schedule might be tight for me... I'm "on vacation" for the week
starting Jun 29. Hopefully I can most of my issues done before then,
but that's a week and a half left at this point :)
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Michael Busch<bu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cool, seems like Mark is volunteering to be the 2.9 release manager ;)
Yay!
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 2.9 Again
Posted by Michael Busch <bu...@gmail.com>.
Cool, seems like Mark is volunteering to be the 2.9 release manager ;)
I need to get the TokenStream API changes in and ideally LUCENE-1448.
How soon is soon? Code freeze in 2-3 weeks or so maybe? Then 7-10 days
testing, so 2.9 should be out mid July? Sounds reasonable?
Michael
On 6/16/09 2:22 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> My email client lost the original thread:
>
> So far, both Mike and I have voiced our desire to get a 2.9 release
> out the door soon. Java 1.5 awaits us on the other side :) No one else
> has really weighed in though. I've jumped in an started to squeeze the
> 2.9 JIRA list with Mike anyway.
>
> Is there anyone against such a move at this point in time? I'll take
> silence to mean your on board, and I'll continue to squeeze the JIRA
> list with regard to patches that are not moving forward.
>
> As it is, I think we are in fairly good shape. There are about 30
> issue left, but most are mostly complete or simple and only a few
> still have major complications to resolve. All have a reasonable
> assignee as well.
>
> If you think we should release 2.9 soon and you are assigned to an
> issue that you cant get to reasonable soon, I'm going to ask again
> that you dis-assign yourself.
>
> Also a reminder, as Mike mentioned, if there are issues out there that
> should be marked 2.9 and are not, please move them to 2.9.
>
> Or please voice your opinion as to why we should hold off.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org