Hi,

I've successfully downloaded and deployed 1.4.1, which is fine except it
doesn't support the spatial search stuff. I tried installing LocalSolr but
came to a bit of an impasse when it appeared to index stuff but didn't
return any results (and then I saw the last commit to the LocalSolr
repository was Dec last year so decided that was probably out-of-date
anyway).

So, if I want the spatial search support it appears there are 2 candidates.
Either the 1.5 or the 3.1 branch and my question is, which one is best for
me to use? I guess the answer to this question is driven by how up-to-date
(with respect the spatial search stuff) and stable 1.5 is (I notice the last
commit is a little over 6 months ago) and how close to stable the 3.1 branch
is.

This is ultimately for a production system so I'm not too keen on "winging"
it with an unstable version, but I'd really like to take advantage of the
spatial search stuff if possible.

As an ancillary question, does anyone know how stable the 3.1 branch is and
how close the dev team feel they are to a release? I guess "it's done when
it's done" but a general idea would be quite helpful.

Thanks in advance.

Mike.

The devs try and keep both the 3 and 4 (trunk) branches stable in the
terms you are talking about at all times. But bear in mind that more
radical changes will tend to hit trunk, probably making it by definition
less stable than 3. But it all depends - you might find a worse bug on
the 3 branch!

A lot of the major changes on both branches have been fairly well tested
up to this point IMO. I really think both are viable options if you
properly test your deployment ahead of time.

One large point though - when you jump on trunk as opposed to 3, you are
more likely to be bitten by an index format change that makes upgrading
an index a pain without a reindex. I think this risk is much greater on
trunk - though when a lucene codec covers all index files, the whole
problem should be heavily mitigated at the least.

It's usually best to reindex anyway, but so painful for some, I guess
there is sometimes really no choice.

- Mark

On 10/14/10 1:22 PM, Mike Squire wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've successfully downloaded and deployed 1.4.1, which is fine except it
> doesn't support the spatial search stuff. I tried installing LocalSolr but
> came to a bit of an impasse when it appeared to index stuff but didn't
> return any results (and then I saw the last commit to the LocalSolr
> repository was Dec last year so decided that was probably out-of-date
> anyway).
>
> So, if I want the spatial search support it appears there are 2 candidates.
> Either the 1.5 or the 3.1 branch and my question is, which one is best for
> me to use? I guess the answer to this question is driven by how up-to-date
> (with respect the spatial search stuff) and stable 1.5 is (I notice the last
> commit is a little over 6 months ago) and how close to stable the 3.1 branch
> is.
>
> This is ultimately for a production system so I'm not too keen on "winging"
> it with an unstable version, but I'd really like to take advantage of the
> spatial search stuff if possible.
>
> As an ancillary question, does anyone know how stable the 3.1 branch is and
> how close the dev team feel they are to a release? I guess "it's done when
> it's done" but a general idea would be quite helpful.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Mike.
>

I'm kind of confused about Solr development plans in general,
highlighted by this thread.

I think 1.4.1 is the latest officially stable release, yes?

Why is there both a 1.5 and a 3.x, anyway?  Not to mention a 4.x?  Which
of these will end up being a stable release? Both? From which will come
the next stable release?

Mark Miller wrote:
> The devs try and keep both the 3 and 4 (trunk) branches stable in the
> terms you are talking about at all times. But bear in mind that more
> radical changes will tend to hit trunk, probably making it by definition
> less stable than 3. But it all depends - you might find a worse bug on
> the 3 branch!
>
> A lot of the major changes on both branches have been fairly well tested
> up to this point IMO. I really think both are viable options if you
> properly test your deployment ahead of time.
>
> One large point though - when you jump on trunk as opposed to 3, you are
> more likely to be bitten by an index format change that makes upgrading
> an index a pain without a reindex. I think this risk is much greater on
> trunk - though when a lucene codec covers all index files, the whole
> problem should be heavily mitigated at the least.
>
> It's usually best to reindex anyway, but so painful for some, I guess
> there is sometimes really no choice.
>
> - Mark
>
> On 10/14/10 1:22 PM, Mike Squire wrote:
>  
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've successfully downloaded and deployed 1.4.1, which is fine except it
>> doesn't support the spatial search stuff. I tried installing LocalSolr but
>> came to a bit of an impasse when it appeared to index stuff but didn't
>> return any results (and then I saw the last commit to the LocalSolr
>> repository was Dec last year so decided that was probably out-of-date
>> anyway).
>>
>> So, if I want the spatial search support it appears there are 2 candidates.
>> Either the 1.5 or the 3.1 branch and my question is, which one is best for
>> me to use? I guess the answer to this question is driven by how up-to-date
>> (with respect the spatial search stuff) and stable 1.5 is (I notice the last
>> commit is a little over 6 months ago) and how close to stable the 3.1 branch
>> is.
>>
>> This is ultimately for a production system so I'm not too keen on "winging"
>> it with an unstable version, but I'd really like to take advantage of the
>> spatial search stuff if possible.
>>
>> As an ancillary question, does anyone know how stable the 3.1 branch is and
>> how close the dev team feel they are to a release? I guess "it's done when
>> it's done" but a general idea would be quite helpful.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Mike.
>>
>>    
>
>
>

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm kind of confused about Solr development plans in general, highlighted by
> this thread.
>
> I think 1.4.1 is the latest officially stable release, yes?
>
> Why is there both a 1.5 and a 3.x, anyway?  Not to mention a 4.x?  Which of
> these will end up being a stable release? Both? From which will come the
> next stable release?

1.5 is pre lucene/solr merge, and is very unlikely to ever be released.
3.1 is the next lucene/solr point release (3x branch in svn)
4.0 is the next major release (trunk in svn)

-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com

On 14.10.2010, at 19:50, Jonathan Rochkind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm kind of confused about Solr development plans in general, highlighted by this thread.
>
> I think 1.4.1 is the latest officially stable release, yes?
>
> Why is there both a 1.5 and a 3.x, anyway?  Not to mention a 4.x?  Which of these will end up being a stable release? Both? From which will come the next stable release?

the current confusing list of branches is a result of the merge of the lucene and solr svn repositories. what baffpes me is that so far the countless plea's for at least a rough roadmap or even just explanation for why so many branches are needed have gone essentially unheard. given that most of the features planned for the next branches already exist in elasticsearch, i am thinking i need to allocate time to switch over to there.

regards
Lukas

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the current confusing list of branches is a result of the merge of the lucene and solr svn repositories. what baffpes me is that so far the countless plea's for at least a rough roadmap or even just explanation for why so many branches are needed

There is one branch users need  to be concerned about: branch_3x
All 3.x releases will be made from that branch.

trunk (which is technically not a branch) is 4.0

-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com

Thanks Yonik!  So I gather that the 1.5 branch has essentially been
abandoned, we can pretend it doesn't exist at all, it's been entirely
superceded by the 3.x branch, with the changes made just for the
purposes of syncronizing versions with lucene.

Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>> I'm kind of confused about Solr development plans in general, highlighted by
>> this thread.
>>
>> I think 1.4.1 is the latest officially stable release, yes?
>>
>> Why is there both a 1.5 and a 3.x, anyway?  Not to mention a 4.x?  Which of
>> these will end up being a stable release? Both? From which will come the
>> next stable release?
>>    
>
> 1.5 is pre lucene/solr merge, and is very unlikely to ever be released.
> 3.1 is the next lucene/solr point release (3x branch in svn)
> 4.0 is the next major release (trunk in svn)
>
> -Yonik
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Yonik!  So I gather that the 1.5 branch has essentially been
> abandoned, we can pretend it doesn't exist at all, it's been entirely
> superceded by the 3.x branch, with the changes made just for the purposes of
> syncronizing versions with lucene.

Right.  Everything marked as 1.5 in the past is in 3.1-dev and 4.0-dev.

1.5 was always just a place-holder for the "next" release, which could
have been 2.0 if we had upgraded Lucene and changed enough stuff in
Solr.  So even before the Lucene/Solr merge, a 1.5 release was never
really guaranteed.

-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com

On 14.10.2010, at 20:46, Yonik Seeley wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thanks Yonik!  So I gather that the 1.5 branch has essentially been
>> abandoned, we can pretend it doesn't exist at all, it's been entirely
>> superceded by the 3.x branch, with the changes made just for the purposes of
>> syncronizing versions with lucene.
>
> Right.  Everything marked as 1.5 in the past is in 3.1-dev and 4.0-dev.
>
> 1.5 was always just a place-holder for the "next" release, which could
> have been 2.0 if we had upgraded Lucene and changed enough stuff in
> Solr.  So even before the Lucene/Solr merge, a 1.5 release was never
> really guaranteed.
>

thx for those clarifications.
is there also a rough timeline for when we can expect 3.1 (or 4.0)?

also .. all the information you should provided should probably be on http://lucene.apache.org/solr/#news

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Hi,

Thank you all for your quick response. Just to clarify I take it for
my particular problem (taking advantage of the spatial search
functionality) my best option is 3.1 and that should be reasonably
stable?

As pointed out before it would be useful to have some kind of
documented road map for development, and some kind of indication of
how close certain versions are to release.

Cheers,
Mike.

On 14 Oct 2010, at 19:47, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thanks Yonik!  So I gather that the 1.5 branch has essentially been
>> abandoned, we can pretend it doesn't exist at all, it's been entirely
>> superceded by the 3.x branch, with the changes made just for the purposes of
>> syncronizing versions with lucene.
>
> Right.  Everything marked as 1.5 in the past is in 3.1-dev and 4.0-dev.
>
> 1.5 was always just a place-holder for the "next" release, which could
> have been 2.0 if we had upgraded Lucene and changed enough stuff in
> Solr.  So even before the Lucene/Solr merge, a 1.5 release was never
> really guaranteed.
>
> -Yonik
> http://www.lucidimagination.com

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Mike Squire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As pointed out before it would be useful to have some kind of
> documented road map for development, and some kind of indication of
> how close certain versions are to release.

Such things have proven to be very unreliable in the past, due to the
volunteer nature of open source.  It would also require everyone
agreeing up-front - which rarely happens ;-)

Specifically for 3.1, everyone seems to want to do a release, and we
have plenty of new features to support that.  I expect it's close, but
the work still needs to be done.

Anyway, our new split branch_3x / trunk development model *should*
allow for more frequent releases in the future, once we get things
rolling.

Side note: I would submit that those projects that release every few weeks
add no additional value over our (currently) infrequent releases.  Due
to our high quality test suites and peer reviewed patches, I'd bet the
stability of our nightly snapshots over some of those other projects
any day!

-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com

On 14.10.2010, at 21:02, Yonik Seeley wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Mike Squire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As pointed out before it would be useful to have some kind of
>> documented road map for development, and some kind of indication of
>> how close certain versions are to release.
>
> Such things have proven to be very unreliable in the past, due to the
> volunteer nature of open source.  It would also require everyone
> agreeing up-front - which rarely happens ;-)
well no information imho is worse. you can also just say the current state of discussion is X, some think however its Y. but no information means users are essentially without any information about the future.

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]