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: It's been 9 months... Time for a release...
Date Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:13:50 GMT
Yep. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 16, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Garrett Barton <garrett.barton@gmail.com> wrote:

> I won't need an upgrade path.  Just flush out zk and hdfs and all will be
> well?
> On Mar 16, 2013 2:18 PM, "Aaron McCurry" <amccurry@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> The upgrade to Lucene 4 will cause the people running 0.1.4 or < issues
>> because of the custom directories in the older versions that are not
>> required in the newer version of Lucene. If there is a compelling reason to
>> create a converter so that upgrade will not require a reindex/reload I can
>> probably create one.
>> 
>> Aaron
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Garrett Barton <garrett.barton@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Sounds like a good list to me. Lucene 4 was the one I wad hoping for. :-)
>>> On Mar 16, 2013 2:10 PM, "Aaron McCurry" <amccurry@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> -Lucene 4.2 Upgrade
>>>>   This is the big feature, but I spent a lot of time a few weeks ago
>>>> testing the resource management (InputIndex clones, Buffers, File GC,
>>> etc)
>>>> and geting it all working.  So I feel really good about this code.
>>>> 
>>>> -Automatic Slab configuration (Easy to integrate code)
>>>>   This is simple but makes things easier to configure
>>>> 
>>>> -Super Query Parser (Easy to integrate code)
>>>>   This gives explicit control over the super queries
>>>> 
>>>> There will probably be a couple of more things to add but most are
>> going
>>> to
>>>> be drop in replacements of existing code.
>>>> 
>>>> Anything else that you can think of that would be good backport?
>>>> 
>>>> Aaron
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Garrett Barton <
>>> garrett.barton@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I'd really like to see one as well. What features are you thinking of
>>>>> backporting?
>>>>> On Mar 16, 2013 2:01 PM, "Aaron McCurry" <amccurry@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Blur has been in the Apache incubator for 9 months and is long
>>> overdue
>>>>> for
>>>>>> a official Apache release.  The 0.2 branch is far away from being
>>> able
>>>> to
>>>>>> be released.  I was overly optimistic of how quickly of 0.2 could
>> be
>>>>>> feature complete.  I know of a couple of projects that have
>> recently
>>>>>> upgrades from previous github versions of Blur to Apache Blur 0.1.4
>>>>>> (compiled locally).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would like to create a 0.1.5 version bound for an Apache release
>>> and
>>>>> back
>>>>>> port a couple of pieces of code from 0.2 in order to modernize the
>>>>>> codebase.  I would like to hear any thoughts on this idea, pros or
>>>> cons?
>>>>> I
>>>>>> really would like to create a release of Apache Blur in the next
>> few
>>>>> weeks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Aaron
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Mime
View raw message