blog roller

[Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>]

I updated the blog with a post, but can't seem to get it to publish to the main page of our website - anyone have any ideas? 		 	   		  

Re: Lucene V4

[Christopher Currens <cu...@gmail.com>]

That's not quite what I meant.  I didn't mean the committers on the
project, I'm not really worried about other's interest in the project.
 I'm invested enough myself in the project that I would keep it going
by myself if I needed to, although I already know that the others are
invested as well, and that would never happen.

When I was talking about users, I meant the users of the library who
use it in different products.  This would include the open source
projects like RavenDB and Orchard, as well as commercial users like
StackOverflow.  We've heavily broken backward compatibility from 2.9.4
to 3.0.3, which, depending on the scope of user's projects, can be a
large upgrade task.  To abandon future versions of that branch, which
would likely require few code changes for our users to upgrade, might
not be in the best interests of the project.

The 4.0 branch is fantastic, and as I said before, we had in the past
expected to have, like our java counterpart, two branches worked on in
parallel, one for the 3.x and 4.x branches.  However, as life has
gotten in the way for all of us, many are unable to put in the amount
of time we originally wanted to in the project.  So that might not be
a possible solution anymore.

I'm NOT saying that skipping out of 3.x and moving to 4.x is the wrong
thing to do.  In fact, it might be what we need to do to spark more
interest in contributers.  The bottom line is that everyone in the PMC
needs to discuss it before we make any decisions.

Thanks,
Christopher

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Michael Mitiaguin
<mi...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>That leaves the question of whether it would alienate our users to abandon
>> the 3.x branch in favor of working solely on the 4.0 release.
>
> My understanding, by users you meant developers ( committers )   who are
> involved and already spent some time on 3.6 branch   Unless 3.6 is the final
> one for Lucene.Net ( hope not ) ,  PMC members could vote or at least
> discuss a feasibility .  Quite possible,  some people after releasing 3.6
> won't  be interested to do it again for V4.  There is a chance to decrease
> the gap between Java and Lucene.Net  counterpart , as Java V4 has just been
> released.
> As for real users like myself,  certainly,  I'd prefer to get Lucene.Net  V4
> earlier and not to have 3.6 at all.

Re: Lucene V4

[Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>]

The reason we wanted to port v3.6 was to avoid version gaps which are too
large - mainly for compatibility reasons.

Chris, you should note a lot of the changes between 3.0.3 and 4.0 are also
there when comparing 3.0.3 to 3.6. The new API has been in the works for
quite a while, and has been prepared during the minor 3.x releases.

As for myself, I would pursue porting v4 rather than doing more ports,
unless we can manage porting both v4 and v3.6 without delaying v4 too much.
Can we?

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Michael Mitiaguin <
mitiaguinm@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> >That leaves the question of whether it would alienate our users to
> abandon the 3.x branch in favor of working solely on the 4.0 release.
>
> My understanding, by users you meant developers ( committers )   who are
> involved and already spent some time on 3.6 branch   Unless 3.6 is the
> final one for Lucene.Net ( hope not ) ,  PMC members could vote or at least
> discuss a feasibility .  Quite possible,  some people after releasing 3.6
> won't  be interested to do it again for V4.  There is a chance to decrease
> the gap between Java and Lucene.Net  counterpart , as Java V4 has just been
> released.
> As for real users like myself,  certainly,  I'd prefer to get Lucene.Net
>  V4 earlier and not to have 3.6 at all.
>
>

Re: Lucene V4

[Michael Mitiaguin <mi...@optusnet.com.au>]

 >That leaves the question of whether it would alienate our users to 
abandon the 3.x branch in favor of working solely on the 4.0 release.

My understanding, by users you meant developers ( committers )   who are 
involved and already spent some time on 3.6 branch   Unless 3.6 is the 
final one for Lucene.Net ( hope not ) ,  PMC members could vote or at 
least discuss a feasibility .  Quite possible,  some people after 
releasing 3.6 won't  be interested to do it again for V4.  There is a 
chance to decrease the gap between Java and Lucene.Net  counterpart , as 
Java V4 has just been released.
As for real users like myself,  certainly,  I'd prefer to get 
Lucene.Net  V4 earlier and not to have 3.6 at all.

Re: Lucene V4

[Christopher Currens <cu...@gmail.com>]

That's not a bad question, actually.  I've been away for a few weeks,
and I didn't even realize that 4.0 had been officially released.  I
think the general consensus for a long time with the team was that we
wanted to port 4.0.  We used to (still do?) have a branch for that,
and a while ago, we had ideas of skipping and/or working on both
simultaneously.  If this project was ported only for myself, I'd
choose to port 4.0 only.

One thing to consider is the number of people that use Lucene and the
amount of backward compatibility changes that have been made between
2.9.4 and 3.0.3 (we're already forcing this on our users) and then
from 3.0.3 to 4.0.  Counting just from what I see with Java from 3.0.3
to 4.0:

Backward compatibility changes: 87
Runtime behavior changes: 36
API Changes: 107  (These include renamed, removed and added api calls,
which might not affect everyone)

That leaves the question of whether it would alienate our users to
abandon the 3.x branch in favor of working solely on the 4.0 release.
There are other related questions as well, as to the actual scope of
the API changes and to the backward compatibility of the index
formats.  I don't have the answer to any of those, and I can't make a
decision about it by myself, I only one member of the PMC.


Thanks,
Christopher

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Michael Mitiaguin
<mi...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> I guess, a bit late to ask this question, as I can see 3.6 in svn
> Has skipping of  respective Java version ever considered ?  I presume, it is
> easier to migrate from 3.6 to 4 other than from 3.03 to 4 , but isn't it  a
> double effort ?
>
> Not clear, for how long we will be waiting for this important improvement :
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com/2011/03/lucenes-fuzzyquery-is-100-times-faster.html
>

Lucene V4

[Michael Mitiaguin <mi...@optusnet.com.au>]

I guess, a bit late to ask this question, as I can see 3.6 in svn
Has skipping of  respective Java version ever considered ?  I presume, 
it is easier to migrate from 3.6 to 4 other than from 3.03 to 4 , but 
isn't it  a double effort ?

Not clear, for how long we will be waiting for this important improvement :
http://blog.mikemccandless.com/2011/03/lucenes-fuzzyquery-is-100-times-faster.html

Re: blog roller

[Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>]

IIRC the site is static, generated via SVN post-commit hook. Since the blog
list is generated at build time (not on every page load) it would only be
updated if you committed some change to the /site directory.

I think there's a script you can run to trigger that from the people.a.o
commandline, but probably the easiest way would just to commit some minor
change to the site.

That will create a staging site and you'd have to manually publish it after
it shows up on the console. Seems like there should be a way to get the
blogging system to trigger the post-commit hook as well. Might want to talk
to infra about that.

Again, not completely sure about all that since I haven't worked with the
CMS in a while.

Thanks,
Troy

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:

> I updated the blog with a post, but can't seem to get it to publish to the
> main page of our website - anyone have any ideas?
>