lucene at mikemccandless
Nov 24, 2009, 2:21 AM
Post #8 of 14
(560 views)
Permalink
|
|
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 3.0.0 (take #2)
[In reply to]
|
|
+1 to release the current artifacts as 3.0.0!
Mike
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Simon Willnauer
<simon.willnauer [at] googlemail> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Uwe Schindler <uwe [at] thetaphi> wrote:
>>> As DM Smith said, since the bug is longstanding and we are only now
>>> just hearing about it, it appears not to be that severe in practice.
>>> I guess users don't often mix coord enabled & disabled BQs, that are
>>> otherwise identical, in the same cache.
>>
>> DM Smith also wanted this in 2.9.2, which I think it's fine. The fix is so
>> simple, we could simply merge it to 2.9 branch. And Erick Erickson also
>> noted that this bug is longstanding.
>>
>>> So I think we ship 3.0.0 anyways?
>>
>> +1, I just wanted to ask. Now votes are required, I have zero counting ones
>> until now.
> +1 for not respinning 3.0 with this bug. I would also agree with the
> statements above!
> +1 for 3.0 even not being a PMC member :)
>
> simon
>>
>> Uwe
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Uwe Schindler <uwe [at] thetaphi> wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > Hoss reported a bug about two fields missing in the equals/hashCode of
>>> > BooleanQuery (which exists since 1.9,
>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2092). Should I respin 3.0
>>> > because of this or just release it? Speak out load, if you want to
>>> respin
>>> > (else vote)!
>>> >
>>> > We will apply the bugfix at least to 2.9.2 and 3.0.1
>>> >
>>> > Uwe
>>> >
>>> > -----
>>> > Uwe Schindler
>>> > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>>> > http://www.thetaphi.de
>>> > eMail: uwe [at] thetaphi
>>> >
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:uwe [at] thetaphi]
>>> >> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 4:07 PM
>>> >> To: general [at] lucene; java-dev [at] lucene
>>> >> Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 3.0.0 (take #2)
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >>
>>> >> I have built the artifacts for the final release of "Apache Lucene Java
>>> >> 3.0.0" a second time, because of a bug in the TokenStream API (found by
>>> >> Shai
>>> >> Erera, who wanted to make "bad" things with addAttribute, breaking its
>>> >> behaviour, LUCENE-2088) and an improvement in NumericRangeQuery (to
>>> >> prevent
>>> >> stack overflow, LUCENE-2087). They are targeted for release on 2009-11-
>>> 25.
>>> >>
>>> >> The artifacts are here:
>>> >> http://people.apache.org/~uschindler/staging-area/lucene-3.0.0-take2/
>>> >>
>>> >> You find the changes in the corresponding sub folder. The SVN revision
>>> is
>>> >> 883080, here the manifest with build system info:
>>> >>
>>> >> Manifest-Version: 1.0
>>> >> Ant-Version: Apache Ant 1.7.0
>>> >> Created-By: 1.5.0_22-b03 (Sun Microsystems Inc.)
>>> >> Specification-Title: Lucene Search Engine
>>> >> Specification-Version: 3.0.0
>>> >> Specification-Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation
>>> >> Implementation-Title: org.apache.lucene
>>> >> Implementation-Version: 3.0.0 883080 - 2009-11-22 15:52:49
>>> >> Implementation-Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation
>>> >> X-Compile-Source-JDK: 1.5
>>> >> X-Compile-Target-JDK: 1.5
>>> >>
>>> >> Please vote to officially release these artifacts as "Apache Lucene
>>> Java
>>> >> 3.0.0".
>>> >>
>>> >> We need at least 3 binding (PMC) votes.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks everyone for all their hard work on this and I am very sorry for
>>> >> requesting a vote again, but that's life! Thanks Shai for the pointer
>>> to
>>> >> the
>>> >> bug!
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Here is the proposed release note, please edit, if needed:
>>> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ---
>>> >>
>>> >> Hello Lucene users,
>>> >>
>>> >> On behalf of the Lucene dev community (a growing community far larger
>>> than
>>> >> just the committers) I would like to announce the release of Lucene
>>> Java
>>> >> 3.0:
>>> >>
>>> >> The new version is mostly a cleanup release without any new features.
>>> All
>>> >> deprecations targeted to be removed in version 3.0 were removed. If you
>>> >> are
>>> >> upgrading from version 2.9.1 of Lucene, you have to fix all deprecation
>>> >> warnings in your code base to be able to recompile against this
>>> version.
>>> >>
>>> >> This is the first Lucene release with Java 5 as a minimum requirement.
>>> The
>>> >> API was cleaned up to make use of Java 5's generics, varargs, enums,
>>> and
>>> >> autoboxing. New users of Lucene are advised to use this version for new
>>> >> developments, because it has a clean, type safe new API. Upgrading
>>> users
>>> >> can
>>> >> now remove unnecessary casts and add generics to their code, too. If
>>> you
>>> >> have not upgraded your installation to Java 5, please read the file
>>> >> JRE_VERSION_MIGRATION.txt (please note that this is not related to
>>> Lucene
>>> >> 3.0, it will also happen with any previous release when you upgrade
>>> your
>>> >> Java environment).
>>> >>
>>> >> Lucene 3.0 has some changes regarding compressed fields: 2.9 already
>>> >> deprecated compressed fields; support for them was removed now. Lucene
>>> 3.0
>>> >> is still able to read indexes with compressed fields, but as soon as
>>> >> merges
>>> >> occur or the index is optimized, all compressed fields are decompressed
>>> >> and
>>> >> converted to Field.Store.YES. Because of this, indexes with compressed
>>> >> fields can suddenly get larger.
>>> >>
>>> >> While we generally try and maintain full backwards compatibility
>>> between
>>> >> major versions, Lucene 3.0 has some minor breaks, mostly related to
>>> >> deprecation removal, pointed out in the 'Changes in backwards
>>> >> compatibility
>>> >> policy' section of CHANGES.txt. Notable are:
>>> >>
>>> >> - IndexReader.open(Directory) now opens in read-only mode per default
>>> >> (this
>>> >> method was deprecated because of that in 2.9). The same occurs to
>>> >> IndexSearcher.
>>> >>
>>> >> - Already started in 2.9, core TokenStreams are now made final to
>>> enforce
>>> >> the decorator pattern.
>>> >>
>>> >> - If you interrupt an IndexWriter merge thread, IndexWriter now throws
>>> an
>>> >> unchecked ThreadInterruptedException that extends RuntimeException and
>>> >> clears the interrupt status.
>>> >>
>>> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ---
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >> Uwe
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> -----
>>> >> Uwe Schindler
>>> >> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>>> >> http://www.thetaphi.de
>>> >> eMail: uwe [at] thetaphi
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
|
