Hi Mark,

 

This problem lets me remember LUCENE-5355: This one affected the “nice” 
javadocs created after release. I backported the patch, so the one running the 
“nice looking javadocs” on java 7 with java 6 bootclasspath can be sure, it was 
really using the correct bootclasspath. Also the documentation howto on the 
wiki applies only to builds with this patch.

 

Uwe

 

-----

Uwe Schindler

H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen

 <http://www.thetaphi.de/> http://www.thetaphi.de

eMail: [email protected]

 

From: Mark Miller [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 12:05 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 4.6.1 RC1

 

If you are building the artifacts, you have to make sure it's using Java 6 
rather than 7. IMO on linux, ant picks up what is set by the JAVA_HOME env 
variable.

 

- Mark

 

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Shawn Heisey <[email protected]> wrote:

On 1/19/2014 12:59 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Unfortunately, I think SOLR-5645 is probably worth a re spin. I think
> otherwise, collection reloads will be unstable vs 4.6.

Collection reloads were unstable once before, SOLR-4805.  A lot of
people were hit by that one.  I was very glad when SOLR-4805 was fixed
and we could tell people that relief was coming.

I admit that I don't know why registering in ZK again is bad, but if you
think the issue warrants a re-spin, I'm inclined to put my vote in that
basket.

-1, please respin.

In other news, when I tried Friday to run nightly-smoke on the SVN
checkout used to build the RC, it failed, said that a jarfile was
missing something like "Created by 1.6" ... which seemed more like a
problem with my setup than the code.  I can obtain the exact error
message by running it again, but does anyone know what my problem might
be?  I have Java 6u26 and 7u25 installed on a Debian system.

Thanks,
Shawn



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]





 

-- 
- Mark 

Reply via email to