incubator-blur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Merge lucene-4.0.0 branch to master
Date Tue, 23 Oct 2012 00:29:21 GMT
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Aaron McCurry <amccurry@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Ok. Let me know how it goes and I can try and debug it a bit, although
you're running much faster than I can at this point. ;-) Definitely
let me know if you can't reproduce it and I'll dig into it for sure.

Patrick

>
>>
>> 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