lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Uwe Schindler" <...@thetaphi.de>
Subject RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 3.0.0 (take #2)
Date Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:05:23 GMT
Here it was in my original mail:

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

In the impl version, it was 883080.

-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andi Vajda [mailto:vajda@osafoundation.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 7:00 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 3.0.0 (take #2)
> 
> 
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> 
> > I will add the tag, when it is officially voted for release. If we
> respin,
> > the tag would be incorrect (and must be removed and recreated). The
> release
> > todo clearly says, that the tag should be added when all votes are
> there,
> > and all other did this like this before.
> >
> > Just one more day and I will create the tag (if I get 2 more votes).
> 
> So I'm in a catch-22. I was going to vote if I could build a PyLucene from
> this and pass all PyLucene tests :)
> 
> Do you happen to know what svn rev was used to build the artifacts ?
> I could use that rev instead of HEAD.
> 
> Andi..
> 
> >
> > Uwe
> >
> > -----
> > Uwe Schindler
> > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> > http://www.thetaphi.de
> > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Andi Vajda [mailto:vajda@osafoundation.org]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 6:46 PM
> >> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Lucene Java 3.0.0 (take #2)
> >>
> >>
> >>   Hi Uwe,
> >>
> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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/
> >>
> >> The artifacts you've prepared don't correspond to the HEAD of the
> >> lucene_3_0 branch anymore since fixes for bugs 2086 and 2092 were
> added.
> >>
> >> Could you please add a lucene_3_0_0 tag that corresponds to the
> artifacts
> >> ?
> >> This makes it easier to build a PyLucene with Lucene Java sources
> >> equivalent
> >> to these artifacts, using Lucene Java's svn.
> >>
> >> Of course, if another revision of these artifacts ends up being made,
> the
> >> tag should then move accordingly but, at this point, it's just missing.
> >>
> >> Thanks !
> >>
> >> Andi..
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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@thetaphi.de
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message