incubator-blur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron McCurry <amccu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Merge lucene-4.0.0 branch to master
Date Tue, 23 Oct 2012 00:23:13 GMT
Hmm.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:
> Sounds good to me.
>
> Not sure if anyone else is seeing this but the unit tests are not
> passing for me on ubuntu. I see one failure and two errors.
>
> Failed tests:
>    testSafeModeSetInFuture(org.apache.blur.manager.clusterstatus.ZookeeperClusterStatusTest)

Haven't seen this.

> Tests in error:
>   testTermDocIterable(org.apache.blur.utils.TermDocIterableTest)

This either.

>   org.apache.blur.thrift.BlurClusterTest: java.lang.NullPointerException

I think I have been seeing this one during some functional tests.
Haven't figured out the cause yet, but it seems like it's a nasty
threading problem.  Because when I drop the mutate threads back 1
everything works fine.  However the test was passing on OSX.

>
> Just me or is this expected?

Not expected.  I'm going to setup a VM on computer to run tests in
Linux as well.

>
> Patrick
>
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Aaron McCurry <amccurry@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We can fix the jira issues.
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Garrett Barton
>> <garrett.barton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Sounds good to me Aaron, call it 0.2. Does that mess up Jira if you have
>>> things scheduled against releases?
>>> On Oct 21, 2012 9:44 AM, "Aaron McCurry" <amccurry@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, I think it will be some time before all the changes for the new
>>>> api are in place and fully functional.  So perhaps we should merge the
>>>> lucene-4.0.0 branch into master and fix whatever bugs are found.  I
>>>> did some system testing yesterday and only found one big issue.  There
>>>> seems to be a threading problem with the BlurAnalyzer.  If a single
>>>> instance is in use across multiple threads some weird behaviors
>>>> happen.  Otherwise everything else seems to work, normally (I will
>>>> create a jira issue).
>>>>
>>>> If we do merge the lucene-4.0.0 branch, I feel like we should change
>>>> the version to 0.2.  The reason is, the indexes in 0.1.x are not going
>>>> to be backwards compatible (at least not with out some work).  Does
>>>> anyone have any strong feelings on this?
>>>>
>>>> Aaron
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Gagan Juneja
>>>> <gagandeepjuneja@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > I agree with Garrett. We can merge this branch to the place from where
we
>>>> > cut it. Again as Garrett said If we want to keep only new api thing
then
>>>> we
>>>> > can merge it to master as well.
>>>> >
>>>> > Regards,
>>>> > Gagan
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Garrett Barton <
>>>> garrett.barton@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I guess it depends on if your planning a 1.4 release with lucene
4. If
>>>> yes
>>>> >> then merge and work towards making everything functional. If not
then
>>>> leave
>>>> >> the 1.3.x in master for bug fixing or whatnot and merge this branch
into
>>>> >> the new api one.
>>>> >> On Oct 20, 2012 11:03 AM, "Aaron McCurry" <amccurry@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > I think that we can merge the lucene-4.0.0 branch back into
the
>>>> >> > master, since tests and code are compiling.  I haven't done
any
>>>> >> > functional testing yet, but if much of the RPC and internals
are going
>>>> >> > to change I think that it may be a waste of time to test and
fix
>>>> >> > everything that we are about to change.  What do others think?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Aaron
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>>

Mime
View raw message