Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 8.5.1 RC1

+1 SUCCESS! [2:38:04.620259] On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 1:28 PM jim ferenczi wrote: > +1 > > SUCCESS! [2:10:08.094546] > > Le jeu. 9 avr. 2020 à 10:19, Alan Woodward a > écrit : > >> +1 >> >> SUCCESS! [1:18:54.574272] >> >> On 8 Apr 2020, at 21:21, Nhat Nguyen >> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> SUCCESS! [0:

Re: Lucene 9.0 Java module system support

Hi Uwe, As I mentioned in the original post, the main issue I've come across with being able to support Java 11 modules is that Lucene doesn't cleanly separate the use of package names across jar libraries which results in errors like: "The package org.apache.lucene.analysis.standard is accessibl

Re: Solr Admin UI Refresh 2020

I think package management frameworks are for loading non-essential features or features not enabled by default. On essentialness, experts should not decide what is essential based on how they use a system. They should consider the community of users. Regarding UI, it is and should be enabled by d

Re: Solr Admin UI Refresh 2020

My 2 cents (again) if packages are disabled by default , how will UI work? We can make an exception for this one and enable only this by default Do we test the UI and certify it? The UI package can be shipped along with Solr distro ,like the million other jars that we ship with Solr today and e

Re: Solr Admin UI Refresh 2020

Solr has always had an admin UI and if anyone wants to propose it should not, please start another thread or vote about that, and do not divert this thread which is about how to improve and future proof the Admin UI. I believe the Admin UI should be strengthened and enhanced, not removed. It can

Re: Welcome Eric Pugh as a Lucene/Solr committer

Welcome Eric Pugh! On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:57 AM Christine Poerschke (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) wrote: > > Welcome Eric! > > Christine > > From: dev@lucene.apache.org At: 04/07/20 14:57:43 > To: dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Welcome Eric Pugh as a Lucene/Solr committer > > Thank you everyone!

Re: Solr Admin UI Refresh 2020

Thanks for your message, Gus. You touched on things I was thinking this morning as I caught up to the thread, and had started to draft a message about. I feel like there is an assumption underlying some of our discussion about packages that says a feature or whatever has to either part of our co

Re: Solr Admin UI Refresh 2020

Gus: Very thoughtful post. I think you raise an _extremely_ important point about “how critical is the UI?” And by extension other packages. If they’re critical to Solr, the question of how to keep them in sync becomes paramount. I agree that the admin UI is important, if we have a mechanism to

Re: Solr Admin UI Refresh 2020

In my view this brings us up against a bit of an existential question. How do we ensure quality of packages that are key to Solr? I'm sure that there are folks who don't find the UI very useful, but it's important to others. The rationale that "elastic keeps their's separate" has to be tempered by

Re: Welcome Eric Pugh as a Lucene/Solr committer

Welcome Eric! Christine From: dev@lucene.apache.org At: 04/07/20 14:57:43To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Welcome Eric Pugh as a Lucene/Solr committer Thank you everyone! I’ll keep it short, otherwise this will be a very long email… ;-). I was first introduced to Solr and Lucene by Eri

Re: Solr Admin UI Refresh 2020

Marcus: re-reading the thread, it looks to me like the consensus from Noble and Ishan and Jan is that as long as the new, nifty UI is a separate package, go ahead and knock yourself out ;). The objection is to making it part of the Solr code base… We’ll all be thrilled with if we can rip the cu

Re: [JENKINS] Lucene-Solr-Tests-master - Build # 4532 - Unstable

Oh, ok. Adrien fixed it. 3363e1aa4897a5eca9f390a9f22cab5686305ef7 On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 1:41 PM Dawid Weiss wrote: > > Can't reproduce this one. > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 3:28 PM Apache Jenkins Server > wrote: > > > > Build: https://builds.apache.org/job/Lucene-Solr-Tests-master/4532/ > > > >

Re: [JENKINS] Lucene-Solr-Tests-master - Build # 4532 - Unstable

Can't reproduce this one. On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 3:28 PM Apache Jenkins Server wrote: > > Build: https://builds.apache.org/job/Lucene-Solr-Tests-master/4532/ > > 1 tests failed. > FAILED: > org.apache.lucene.codecs.uniformsplit.TestUniformSplitPostingFormat.testRandom > > Error Message: > Captu

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 8.5.1 RC1

+1 SUCCESS! [2:10:08.094546] Le jeu. 9 avr. 2020 à 10:19, Alan Woodward a écrit : > +1 > > SUCCESS! [1:18:54.574272] > > On 8 Apr 2020, at 21:21, Nhat Nguyen > wrote: > > +1 > > SUCCESS! [0:52:20.920081] > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 6:31 AM Ignacio Vera wrote: > >> >> Please vote for release

Re: Solr Admin UI Refresh 2020

Hi, However I'm not a "UI expert" but I worked on various webapps (Webshops, Banking clients etc.) And I worked with several js libs (jquery, early angular, extjs, React, Vue, etc). >From my experience: - From technical perspective there will be no "better" choice, all frameworks has pros and cons

Re: Solr Admin UI Refresh 2020

The advantage of hosting this outside are * You can have ui experts as committers instead of back end devs like us * You can iterate fast * Users can update to the new version of UI without reinstalling Solr or even restarting their nodes * People can even downgrade to an older version if their cu

Re: Solr Admin UI Refresh 2020

@Marcus Eagan Is the current UI bad? totally yes. Is a better UI welcome ? 100% Is your proposal better ? 100% My only concern is adding a huge amount of code into our already bloated codebase We have multiple options that can work a) We already add so many jars in our distro. Can this be added

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 8.5.1 RC1

+1 SUCCESS! [1:18:54.574272] > On 8 Apr 2020, at 21:21, Nhat Nguyen > wrote: > > +1 > > SUCCESS! [0:52:20.920081] > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 6:31 AM Ignacio Vera > wrote: > > Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene/S