I remember thinking several months back, when some Jira fix caught my eye,
"Man, that's a heinous bug, we should really put out a 1.4.1 bug fix
release for that once it's committed."  Then i evidently got distracted,
and there was a lot going on with the trunk merge, and then the 3x branch
creation, etc... and i evidently forgot all about it.

Auditing all of the "post 1.4" Jira issues yesterday, Nine (*9*) Fixed
bugs stood out to me as being really, REALLY bad -- bugs that made me
think "Man, that was a really heinous bug, why didn't we put out a 1.4.1
bug fix release for that???".  In addition, there where nine other bugs
that seemed anoyingly trivial that if we *do* have a 1.4.1 bug fix
release, we should try to include them.  (See below for these two bug
lists)

I get the sense that people are itching to do a 3.1 release of Lucene &
Solr "soon" -- but realizsticly speaking "soon" seems like it will be at
least a few months (if nothing else, since this will be the first "merged"
release, there are probably some release process logistics that will need
to be shaken out).

So my questions is: How many other people agree that it's worthwhile to do
a 1.4.1 release?

This would be a "bug fix" release, so there is no need for "oh wait, i
want better flesh out this API/Feature" hesitation.  And we would release
from the svn:lucene/solr/branches/branch-1.4/ so none of the trunk merge
build system changes would really affect things.  It should be relatively
painless, all we need to do is merge the existing fixes for these issues
onto that branch -- and that *should* be straight forward: all of these
issues were already fixed on the 1.5-dev branch, so theres almost no
chance they depend on much new Lucene 3x stuff (and if i'm wrong, we just
skip that issue)

I'm willing to step up and do most of the backporting work -- but i don't
want to waste that time if there aren't a few other people ready to help
with the testing and the rest of the release process.  In particular i'd
rather not be the release manager (i don't even think i can be since i
don't have a PGP Key) on top of doing the back porting.  So i'm at least
looking for a commitment from one other person whose willingto help ou
with that.
  So what do people think?
-Hoss

## 9 Bugs w/fixes on the 1.5 branch that seem serious enough
## that they warrant a 1.4.1 bug-fix release...

FunctionQueries aren't correctly weighted
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1432

FastLRUCache doesn't correctly implement LRU
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1572

StreamingUpdateSolrServer doesn't specify UTF-8
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1595

capitalizationfilter crashes using maxWordCountOption
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1660

BufferedTokenStream incorrect cloning
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1662

Race condition in StreamingUpdateSolrServer
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1711

fields with sortMissingLast don't sort correctly
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1777

ConcurrentModificationException
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1797

Memory leak in FastLRUCache
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1798

## 9 Other bugs that already have fixes on the 1.5 branch
## that seem simple enough to backport if we are going
## to have a 1.4.1 bug-fix release...

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1522
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1538
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1558
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1563
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1579
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1580
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1582
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1596
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1651

---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Chris Hostetter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> I remember thinking several months back, when some Jira fix caught my eye,
> "Man, that's a heinous bug, we should really put out a 1.4.1 bug fix release
> for that once it's committed."  Then i evidently got distracted, and there
> was a lot going on with the trunk merge, and then the 3x branch creation,
> etc... and i evidently forgot all about it.
>
>
I would suggest that if there is 1.4.1, that it use lucene 2.9.2 jars also.
some bugfixes there too.

--
Robert Muir
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

: I would suggest that if there is 1.4.1, that it use lucene 2.9.2 jars also.
: some bugfixes there too.

+1 ... good call ... i think it may have actually been the a bug fix in
the 2.9.2 release that i was initially thinking of.

-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd likely be willing to be RM. If someone that has done it before would
like to, that would prob be faster - I have only RM'd Lucene. But I'd be
willing to do it.

- Mark

On 5/29/10 12:23 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
> I remember thinking several months back, when some Jira fix caught my
> eye, "Man, that's a heinous bug, we should really put out a 1.4.1 bug
> fix release for that once it's committed." Then i evidently got
> distracted, and there was a lot going on with the trunk merge, and then
> the 3x branch creation, etc... and i evidently forgot all about it.
>
> Auditing all of the "post 1.4" Jira issues yesterday, Nine (*9*) Fixed
> bugs stood out to me as being really, REALLY bad -- bugs that made me
> think "Man, that was a really heinous bug, why didn't we put out a 1.4.1
> bug fix release for that???". In addition, there where nine other bugs
> that seemed anoyingly trivial that if we *do* have a 1.4.1 bug fix
> release, we should try to include them. (See below for these two bug lists)
>
> I get the sense that people are itching to do a 3.1 release of Lucene &
> Solr "soon" -- but realizsticly speaking "soon" seems like it will be at
> least a few months (if nothing else, since this will be the first
> "merged" release, there are probably some release process logistics that
> will need to be shaken out).
>
> So my questions is: How many other people agree that it's worthwhile to
> do a 1.4.1 release?
>
> This would be a "bug fix" release, so there is no need for "oh wait, i
> want better flesh out this API/Feature" hesitation. And we would release
> from the svn:lucene/solr/branches/branch-1.4/ so none of the trunk merge
> build system changes would really affect things. It should be relatively
> painless, all we need to do is merge the existing fixes for these issues
> onto that branch -- and that *should* be straight forward: all of these
> issues were already fixed on the 1.5-dev branch, so theres almost no
> chance they depend on much new Lucene 3x stuff (and if i'm wrong, we
> just skip that issue)
>
> I'm willing to step up and do most of the backporting work -- but i
> don't want to waste that time if there aren't a few other people ready
> to help with the testing and the rest of the release process. In
> particular i'd rather not be the release manager (i don't even think i
> can be since i don't have a PGP Key) on top of doing the back porting.
> So i'm at least looking for a commitment from one other person whose
> willingto help ou with that.
>
>
> So what do people think?
>
>
> -Hoss
>
> ## 9 Bugs w/fixes on the 1.5 branch that seem serious enough
> ## that they warrant a 1.4.1 bug-fix release...
>
> FunctionQueries aren't correctly weighted
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1432
>
> FastLRUCache doesn't correctly implement LRU
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1572
>
> StreamingUpdateSolrServer doesn't specify UTF-8
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1595
>
> capitalizationfilter crashes using maxWordCountOption
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1660
>
> BufferedTokenStream incorrect cloning
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1662
>
> Race condition in StreamingUpdateSolrServer
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1711
>
> fields with sortMissingLast don't sort correctly
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1777
>
> ConcurrentModificationException
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1797
>
> Memory leak in FastLRUCache
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1798
>
> ## 9 Other bugs that already have fixes on the 1.5 branch ## that seem
> simple enough to backport if we are going ## to have a 1.4.1 bug-fix
> release...
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1522
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1538
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1558
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1563
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1579
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1580
- Mark

http://www.lucidimagination.com

I can do it too, but not until after Buzzwords.  It's pretty automated at this point, Mark, other than the 700 lines of instructions that are not automated ;-)

On May 29, 2010, at 3:40 AM, Mark Miller wrote:

> I'd likely be willing to be RM. If someone that has done it before would like to, that would prob be faster - I have only RM'd Lucene. But I'd be willing to do it.
>
> - Mark
>
> On 5/29/10 12:23 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>>
>> I remember thinking several months back, when some Jira fix caught my
>> eye, "Man, that's a heinous bug, we should really put out a 1.4.1 bug
>> fix release for that once it's committed." Then i evidently got
>> distracted, and there was a lot going on with the trunk merge, and then
>> the 3x branch creation, etc... and i evidently forgot all about it.
>>
>> Auditing all of the "post 1.4" Jira issues yesterday, Nine (*9*) Fixed
>> bugs stood out to me as being really, REALLY bad -- bugs that made me
>> think "Man, that was a really heinous bug, why didn't we put out a 1.4.1
>> bug fix release for that???". In addition, there where nine other bugs
>> that seemed anoyingly trivial that if we *do* have a 1.4.1 bug fix
>> release, we should try to include them. (See below for these two bug lists)
>>
>> I get the sense that people are itching to do a 3.1 release of Lucene &
>> Solr "soon" -- but realizsticly speaking "soon" seems like it will be at
>> least a few months (if nothing else, since this will be the first
>> "merged" release, there are probably some release process logistics that
>> will need to be shaken out).
>>
>> So my questions is: How many other people agree that it's worthwhile to
>> do a 1.4.1 release?
>>
>> This would be a "bug fix" release, so there is no need for "oh wait, i
>> want better flesh out this API/Feature" hesitation. And we would release
>> from the svn:lucene/solr/branches/branch-1.4/ so none of the trunk merge
>> build system changes would really affect things. It should be relatively
>> painless, all we need to do is merge the existing fixes for these issues
>> onto that branch -- and that *should* be straight forward: all of these
>> issues were already fixed on the 1.5-dev branch, so theres almost no
>> chance they depend on much new Lucene 3x stuff (and if i'm wrong, we
>> just skip that issue)
>>
>> I'm willing to step up and do most of the backporting work -- but i
>> don't want to waste that time if there aren't a few other people ready
>> to help with the testing and the rest of the release process. In
>> particular i'd rather not be the release manager (i don't even think i
>> can be since i don't have a PGP Key) on top of doing the back porting.
>> So i'm at least looking for a commitment from one other person whose
>> willingto help ou with that.
>>
>>
>> So what do people think?
>>
>>
>> -Hoss
>>
>> ## 9 Bugs w/fixes on the 1.5 branch that seem serious enough
>> ## that they warrant a 1.4.1 bug-fix release...
>>
>> FunctionQueries aren't correctly weighted
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1432
>>
>> FastLRUCache doesn't correctly implement LRU
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1572
>>
>> StreamingUpdateSolrServer doesn't specify UTF-8
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1595
>>
>> capitalizationfilter crashes using maxWordCountOption
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1660
>>
>> BufferedTokenStream incorrect cloning
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1662
>>
>> Race condition in StreamingUpdateSolrServer
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1711
>>
>> fields with sortMissingLast don't sort correctly
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1777
>>
>> ConcurrentModificationException
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1797
>>
>> Memory leak in FastLRUCache
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1798
>>
>> ## 9 Other bugs that already have fixes on the 1.5 branch ## that seem
>> simple enough to backport if we are going ## to have a 1.4.1 bug-fix

Alright cool ... it would have been nice to get at least one more person
to chime in and say "I'll help test" but since there are at least three of
us interested i'll get started on backporting the patches with the plan
that Miller will be RM, with Grant as the fall back RM if Miller runs into
any problems.

worst case scenerio we should have an RC ready a few days after Buzzwords,
and i imagine we should be able to finalize everything within a week after
that.

: Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 06:20:39 -0400
: From: Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Subject: Re: Push for a Solr 1.4.1 Bug Fix Release?
:
: I can do it too, but not until after Buzzwords.  It's pretty automated at this point, Mark, other than the 700 lines of instructions that are not automated ;-)
:
: On May 29, 2010, at 3:40 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
:
: > I'd likely be willing to be RM. If someone that has done it before would like to, that would prob be faster - I have only RM'd Lucene. But I'd be willing to do it.
: >
: > - Mark
: >
: > On 5/29/10 12:23 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: >>
: >> I remember thinking several months back, when some Jira fix caught my
: >> eye, "Man, that's a heinous bug, we should really put out a 1.4.1 bug
: >> fix release for that once it's committed." Then i evidently got
: >> distracted, and there was a lot going on with the trunk merge, and then
: >> the 3x branch creation, etc... and i evidently forgot all about it.
: >>
: >> Auditing all of the "post 1.4" Jira issues yesterday, Nine (*9*) Fixed
: >> bugs stood out to me as being really, REALLY bad -- bugs that made me
: >> think "Man, that was a really heinous bug, why didn't we put out a 1.4.1
: >> bug fix release for that???". In addition, there where nine other bugs
: >> that seemed anoyingly trivial that if we *do* have a 1.4.1 bug fix
: >> release, we should try to include them. (See below for these two bug lists)
: >>
: >> I get the sense that people are itching to do a 3.1 release of Lucene &
: >> Solr "soon" -- but realizsticly speaking "soon" seems like it will be at
: >> least a few months (if nothing else, since this will be the first
: >> "merged" release, there are probably some release process logistics that
: >> will need to be shaken out).
: >>
: >> So my questions is: How many other people agree that it's worthwhile to
: >> do a 1.4.1 release?
: >>
: >> This would be a "bug fix" release, so there is no need for "oh wait, i
: >> want better flesh out this API/Feature" hesitation. And we would release
: >> from the svn:lucene/solr/branches/branch-1.4/ so none of the trunk merge
: >> build system changes would really affect things. It should be relatively
: >> painless, all we need to do is merge the existing fixes for these issues
: >> onto that branch -- and that *should* be straight forward: all of these
: >> issues were already fixed on the 1.5-dev branch, so theres almost no
: >> chance they depend on much new Lucene 3x stuff (and if i'm wrong, we
: >> just skip that issue)
: >>
: >> I'm willing to step up and do most of the backporting work -- but i
: >> don't want to waste that time if there aren't a few other people ready
: >> to help with the testing and the rest of the release process. In
: >> particular i'd rather not be the release manager (i don't even think i
: >> can be since i don't have a PGP Key) on top of doing the back porting.
: >> So i'm at least looking for a commitment from one other person whose
: >> willingto help ou with that.
: >>
: >>
: >> So what do people think?
: >>
: >>
: >> -Hoss
: >>
: >> ## 9 Bugs w/fixes on the 1.5 branch that seem serious enough
: >> ## that they warrant a 1.4.1 bug-fix release...
: >>
: >> FunctionQueries aren't correctly weighted
: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1432
: >>
: >> FastLRUCache doesn't correctly implement LRU
: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1572
: >>
: >> StreamingUpdateSolrServer doesn't specify UTF-8

-Hoss

FYI...

: ## 9 Bugs w/fixes on the 1.5 branch that seem serious enough
: ## that they warrant a 1.4.1 bug-fix release...

...those 9 bugs have been merged to branch-1.4.  I'll work on the
remainders listed below (which includes upgrading the lucene jars) tomorow
or monday....

: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1522
: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1538
: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1558
: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1563
: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1579
: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1580
: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1582
: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1596
: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1651

  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1934
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Chris Hostetter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> Alright cool ... it would have been nice to get at least one more person
> to chime in and say "I'll help test"
if you make an RC, i will help try to break it.

--
Robert Muir
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

(10/05/30 14:08), Chris Hostetter wrote:
> FYI...
>
> : ## 9 Bugs w/fixes on the 1.5 branch that seem serious enough
> : ## that they warrant a 1.4.1 bug-fix release...
>
> ...those 9 bugs have been merged to branch-1.4.  I'll work on the
> remainders listed below (which includes upgrading the lucene jars) tomorow
> or monday....
>
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1522
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1538
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1558
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1563
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1579
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1580
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1582
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1596
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1651
>
>    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1934
>
>
> -Hoss
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>    
I'll backport the following soon if there is no objections:

* SOLR-1748, SOLR-1747, SOLR-1746, SOLR-1745, SOLR-1744: Streams and Readers
retrieved from ContentStreams are not closed in various places, resulting
in file descriptor leaks.
(Christoff Brill, Mark Miller)

Koji

--
http://www.rondhuit.com/en/

+1

I can help test any RC too.

Bill

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Koji Sekiguchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  (10/05/30 14:08), Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
> FYI...
>
> : ## 9 Bugs w/fixes on the 1.5 branch that seem serious enough
> : ## that they warrant a 1.4.1 bug-fix release...
>
> ...those 9 bugs have been merged to branch-1.4.  I'll work on the
> remainders listed below (which includes upgrading the lucene jars) tomorow
> or monday....
>
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1522
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1538
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1558
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1563
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1579
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1580
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1582
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1596
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1651
>
>   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1934
>
>
> -Hoss
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>    I'll backport the following soon if there is no objections:
>
> * SOLR-1748, SOLR-1747, SOLR-1746, SOLR-1745, SOLR-1744: Streams and
> Readers
> retrieved from ContentStreams are not closed in various places, resulting
> in file descriptor leaks.
> (Christoff Brill, Mark Miller)
>
> Koji
>
> -- http://www.rondhuit.com/en/
>
>

This has to be fixed as well
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1934>
769

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Bill Au <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> +1
>
> I can help test any RC too.
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Koji Sekiguchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>>  (10/05/30 14:08), Chris Hostetter wrote:
>>
>> FYI...
>>
>> : ## 9 Bugs w/fixes on the 1.5 branch that seem serious enough
>> : ## that they warrant a 1.4.1 bug-fix release...
>>
>> ...those 9 bugs have been merged to branch-1.4.  I'll work on the
>> remainders listed below (which includes upgrading the lucene jars) tomorow
>> or monday....
>>
>> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1522
>> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1538
>> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1558
>> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1563
>> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1579
>> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1580
>> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1582
>> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1596
>> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1651
>>
>>   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1934
>>
>>
>> -Hoss
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>    I'll backport the following soon if there is no objections:
>>
>> * SOLR-1748, SOLR-1747, SOLR-1746, SOLR-1745, SOLR-1744: Streams and
>> Readers
>> retrieved from ContentStreams are not closed in various places, resulting
>> in file descriptor leaks.
>> (Christoff Brill, Mark Miller)
>>
>> Koji
>>
>> -- http://www.rondhuit.com/en/
>>
>>
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Noble Paul | Systems Architect| AOL | http://aol.com

On 5/29/10 7:19 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
> with the plan
> that Miller will be RM, with Grant as the fall back RM if Miller runs into
> any problems.
>

Ah man - just realized that I didn't migrate my code signing key from my
old laptop when I changed computers - bummer. I was all web of trusted
and everything.

--
- Mark

http://www.lucidimagination.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

On 5/30/10 7:03 PM, Koji Sekiguchi wrote:
> (10/05/30 14:08), Chris Hostetter wrote:
>> FYI...
>>
>> : ## 9 Bugs w/fixes on the 1.5 branch that seem serious enough
>> : ## that they warrant a 1.4.1 bug-fix release...
>>
>> ...those 9 bugs have been merged to branch-1.4.  I'll work on the
>> remainders listed below (which includes upgrading the lucene jars) tomorow
>> or monday....
>>
>> :https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1522
>> :https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1538
>> :https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1558
>> :https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1563
>> :https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1579
>> :https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1580
>> :https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1582
>> :https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1596
>> :https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1651
>>
>>    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1934
>>
>>
>> -Hoss
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
> I'll backport the following soon if there is no objections:
>
> * SOLR-1748, SOLR-1747, SOLR-1746, SOLR-1745, SOLR-1744: Streams and Readers
> retrieved from ContentStreams are not closed in various places, resulting
> in file descriptor leaks.
> (Christoff Brill, Mark Miller)
>
> Koji
>
> --
> http://www.rondhuit.com/en/
>

Nice, thanks. At least one of those is really fairly nasty (most leaks
being nasty on a server app anyway).

--
- Mark

http://www.lucidimagination.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

All of the planned issues for 1.4.1 have been committed to branch-1.4, and
i've upgraded it to Lucene 2.9.2.  We will most likely be waiting for
Lucene 2.9.3 to be ready (at least as a release candidate) before
publishing any Solr 1.4.1 release candidates, but it would be great if
folks interested in helping out with testing could check out branch-1.4
and take it for a spin...

 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/solr/branches/branch-1.4
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> All of the planned issues for 1.4.1 have been committed to branch-1.4, and
>

just wondering, where was this planning?
> but it would be great if
> folks interested in helping out with testing could check out branch-1.4
> and take it for a spin...
>

not much point really. you can break it by using either having a stopword
before a hyphenated word (SOLR-1852) or simply by installing Solr on a
non-US computer (LUCENE-2466)

Seriously not trying to be a pain in the ass, its perfectly fine to say 'no
we dont want to fix this shit in 1.4.1', but just say something so i can
mark issues resolved, etc.

--
Robert Muir
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

: > All of the planned issues for 1.4.1 have been committed to branch-1.4, and
: >
:
: just wondering, where was this planning?

Earlier in the thread -- i posted a list of 18 issues that i was planning
on merging, and got feedback saying "good idea", but besides upgrading to
2.9.2 (or 2.9.3) no one suggested any other bugs we should specificly
backport (Koji and Yonik did evidently merge some other fixes directly to
the branch w/o replying -- you can see the full list in Jira)

: not much point really. you can break it by using either having a stopword
: before a hyphenated word (SOLR-1852) or simply by installing Solr on a
: non-US computer (LUCENE-2466)
:
: Seriously not trying to be a pain in the ass, its perfectly fine to say 'no
: we dont want to fix this shit in 1.4.1', but just say something so i can
: mark issues resolved, etc.

No worries, I'm not complaining...

SOLR-1852: i never even noticed this issue to consider it because i was
only looking at things marked "Resolved" in the 1.5, 3.1, or 4.0 branch (i
was only looking for things we already had fixes for) and this issue is
still marked open ...looking at it now, am i correct in understanding that
it was fixed in 3.1/4.0 as a side effect of something else, and the patch
you posted is only needed/useful in 1.4? ... if so then let's definitley
get that in 1.4.1.

LUCENE-2466: didn't show up in my lists because it's a LUCENE issue ...
i'm a personally leary of merging this to include i na point release --
but that's my own paranoia since it's a lot of changes that i'm not
directly familiar with, and i know there is a realatively simple work
arround (set the system defaults locale/charset) --- But if you're
confident none of these changes will break stuff for anyone already using
Solr/Lucene then hell yeah, by all means please merge these into 2.9.3 and
1.4.1.
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------

: LUCENE-2466: didn't show up in my lists because it's a LUCENE issue ...

...if you do merge that one, we should probably have a new SOLR issue for
tracking the commits to the "pre-merged-trunk" branch-1.4 ... we can
mark it as a child of, or dependent on LUCENE-2466.

-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
>
> SOLR-1852: i never even noticed this issue to consider it because i was
> only looking at things marked "Resolved" in the 1.5, 3.1, or 4.0 branch (i
> was only looking for things we already had fixes for) and this issue is
> still marked open ...looking at it now, am i correct in understanding that
> it was fixed in 3.1/4.0 as a side effect of something else, and the patch
> you posted is only needed/useful in 1.4? ... if so then let's definitley
> get that in 1.4.1.
>

Yeah this was fixed for a while in trunk. I am only being a pain in the ass
about it because Peter (the reporter) has been patiently waiting for some
decision on what to do about it... I do think its sneaky, i mean stopword
before punctuation is probably pretty common :)
>
> LUCENE-2466: didn't show up in my lists because it's a LUCENE issue ...
> i'm a personally leary of merging this to include i na point release --
>

One alternative instead of merging those fixes would be to document a
recommendation to just use -D's from the jvm to ensure US locale, since we
know others are problematic.

--
Robert Muir
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

: Yeah this was fixed for a while in trunk. I am only being a pain in the ass
: about it because Peter (the reporter) has been patiently waiting for some
: decision on what to do about it... I do think its sneaky, i mean stopword
: before punctuation is probably pretty common :)

yeah ... totally understandable, like i said i just hadn't noticed it --
you'll get no objection from me if you want to backport it.

: > LUCENE-2466: didn't show up in my lists because it's a LUCENE issue ...
: > i'm a personally leary of merging this to include i na point release --
...
: One alternative instead of merging those fixes would be to document a
: recommendation to just use -D's from the jvm to ensure US locale, since we
: know others are problematic.

Hmmm ... yeah, that seems like it might be safer (aren't there still
some outstanding default Locale issues anyway? ... particularly in DIH?)

it would probably be good advice for any old (1.1-1.4) users as well ...  
but like i said: i can easily be persuaded to include it if you have faith
in it (i mainly just don't want to do the merge myself becuase it looks
like a serious PITA)
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> yeah ... totally understandable, like i said i just hadn't noticed it --
> you'll get no objection from me if you want to backport it.
>

ok i will look at merging this one later tonight / tomorrow unless someone
pipes up.
> : One alternative instead of merging those fixes would be to document a
> : recommendation to just use -D's from the jvm to ensure US locale, since
> we
> : know others are problematic.
>
> Hmmm ... yeah, that seems like it might be safer (aren't there still
> some outstanding default Locale issues anyway? ... particularly in DIH?)
>
> it would probably be good advice for any old (1.1-1.4) users as well ...
>

lets just document the workaround for this one in the CHANGES? Solr wiki?

In this case Lucene 2.9.x is actually OK, it was only newer 3.x code that
had problems.
--
Robert Muir
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

: lets just document the workaround for this one in the CHANGES? Solr wiki?

Let's do both ... we know it affects 1.4.1, and it's good advice in
general even if we fix every issue we know of in 3.1 and 4.0 (because we
might miss some)

I took a stab at some verbage on the wiki...

http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrInstall?action=diff&rev2=22&rev1=21

...and in CHANGES.txt for 1.4.1...

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=950716

...please update if i worded poorly (or got it wrong).
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------

thanks, perfect!

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> : lets just document the workaround for this one in the CHANGES? Solr wiki?
>
> Let's do both ... we know it affects 1.4.1, and it's good advice in
> general even if we fix every issue we know of in 3.1 and 4.0 (because we
> might miss some)
>
> I took a stab at some verbage on the wiki...
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrInstall?action=diff&rev2=22&rev1=21
>
> ...and in CHANGES.txt for 1.4.1...
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=950716
>
> ...please update if i worded poorly (or got it wrong).
>
>
> -Hoss
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Robert Muir
[EMAIL PROTECTED]