lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
Date Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:45:13 GMT
Hello again,

We are done with testing on our end. As far as we can tell, Lucene 2.9.4 is
good to go.

Now all that is left is to hope Digy will decide to have the Spatial.Net fix
in too so we can get the whole deal from nuget :)

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> Thanks Itamar!
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:22:59 +0300
> > From: itamar@code972.com
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
> >
> > We have been running some extensive tests >30hrs now against the 2.9.4
> > branch, and did not detect any leaks. We will have it running a few more
> > days, if you wish to wait for more conclusive findings.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > > 2.9.4 would make it in I assume because that will be our next official
> > > release.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from my Windows Phone
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michael Herndon
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:12 AM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
> > >
> > > > What version is going to make it to nuget? 2.9.4 or 2.9.4g?
> > > ooo totally forgot about nuget. we definitely need to get that setup.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 6:46 AM, digy digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Since it includes some level of divergence from java I committed it
> to
> > > only
> > > > 2.9.4g branch.
> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1930
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-431
> > > >
> > > > DIGY
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> itamar@code972.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ok, core compiles, and all tests pass. We are now running long
> tests to
> > > > > measure memory usage among other things.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is one show stopper tho. There was a patch sent by Matt
> Warren
> > > for
> > > > > Spatial.Net, that doesn't seem to be in. See
> > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/ravendb/msg/7517f095810c48f3
> > > > >
> > > > > Any chance you can get it in to 2.9.4?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> itamar@code972.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, great, we will run RavenDB on top of 2.9.4 in the next few
> days
> > > and
> > > > > > will let you know how it went.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Michael Herndon <
> > > > > > mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I can't tell if the apache git mirror is updated via scheduler
> or
> > > from
> > > > > >> commit hooks, but its generally stays close to being on
par with
> > > svn.
> > > > > >> I'll
> > > > > >> check next time I push something to svn.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> But both of those items have made it to the mirror.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> - michael
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > I don't know how often github mirror is updated.
> > > > > >> > These are the original locations
> > > > > >> > 2.9.4
> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/trunk/
> > > > > >> > 2.9.4g
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/branches/Lucene.Net_2_
> > > > > >> > 9_4g/
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Both versions include ThreadLocal fix + Signing.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > DIGY
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> > From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:
> > > > itamar.synhershko@gmail.com
> > > > > ]
> > > > > >> On
> > > > > >> > Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > >> > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 2:34 AM
> > > > > >> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Not a problem, we will test RavenDB on a separate branch,
also
> for
> > > > > >> > potential
> > > > > >> > memory leaks
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Digy, can you make sure the github mirror contains
an updated
> > > 2.9.4
> > > > > tag
> > > > > >> I
> > > > > >> > can pull from, which includes the latest ThreadLocal
fix + the
> > > > > strongly
> > > > > >> > signed patch applied to it?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > 2011/9/6 Digy <digydigy@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > To avoid misunderstanding...
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Community==all Lucene.Net users
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > DIGY
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> > > From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> > > > > >> > > Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 11:46 PM
> > > > > >> > > To: 'lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org'
> > > > > >> > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Not bad idea, but I would prefer community's feedback
> instead of
> > > > > >> testing
> > > > > >> > > against all projects using Lucene.Net
> > > > > >> > > DIGY
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> > > From: Matt Warren [mailto:mattdebs@gmail.com]
> > > > > >> > > Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 11:09 PM
> > > > > >> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > If you want to test it against a large project
you could
> take a
> > > > look
> > > > > >> at
> > > > > >> > how
> > > > > >> > > RavenDB uses it?
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > At the moment it's using 2.9.2 (
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/ayende/ravendb/tree/master/SharedLibs/Sources/Lucene2.9.2
> > > > > >> > > )
> > > > > >> > > but if you were to recompile it against 2.9.4
and check that
> all
> > > > > it's
> > > > > >> > > unit-tests still run that would give you quite
a large test
> > > case.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On 5 September 2011 19:22, Prescott Nasser <
> > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Hey All,
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > How do people feel about the 2.9.4 code base?
I've been
> using
> > > it
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > sometime, for my use cases it's be excellent.
Do we feel
> we
> > > are
> > > > > >> ready
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > > > package this up and make it an official release?
Or do we
> have
> > > > > some
> > > > > >> > tasks
> > > > > >> > > > left to take care of?
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > ~Prescott
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message