issues  

Messages by Thread

• [PR] Reuse entry point scores and provide mechanisms to provide scores for directly entry points [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reuse entry point scores and provide mechanisms to provide scores for directly entry points [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reuse entry point scores and provide mechanisms to provide scores for directly entry points [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reuse entry point scores and provide mechanisms to provide scores for directly entry points [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reuse entry point scores and provide mechanisms to provide scores for directly entry points [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reuse entry point scores and provide mechanisms to provide scores for directly entry points [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reuse entry point scores and provide mechanisms to provide scores for directly entry points [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reuse entry point scores and provide mechanisms to provide scores for directly entry points [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reuse entry point scores and provide mechanisms to provide scores for directly entry points [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reuse entry point scores and provide mechanisms to provide scores for directly entry points [lucene] via GitHub
• [I] TestTieredMergePolicy.testPartialMerge fails [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] TestTieredMergePolicy.testPartialMerge fails [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] TestTieredMergePolicy.testPartialMerge fails [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] TestTieredMergePolicy.testPartialMerge fails [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] TestTieredMergePolicy.testPartialMerge fails [lucene] via GitHub
• [I] Why CachingMergeContext works correctly [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Why CachingMergeContext works correctly [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Revert "[Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests" [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Revert "[Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests" [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Revert "Increase Dynamic Range Faceting test coverage (#14238)" [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Revert "Increase Dynamic Range Faceting test coverage (#14238)" [lucene] via GitHub
• Re: [PR] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting test coverage (#14238) [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Improve user-facing docs. [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Improve user-facing docs. [lucene] via GitHub
• Re: [PR] Introduce multiSelect for ScalarQuantizer [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Accept nodes where score == Math.nextUp(results.minCompetitiveSimilarity()) after #14215 [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Accept nodes where score == Math.nextUp(results.minCompetitiveSimilarity()) after #14215 [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Strengthen calls to isDeterministic() in TestRegExpParsing [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Strengthen calls to isDeterministic() in TestRegExpParsing [lucene] via GitHub
• [I] [Feature] Add support for passing extra information with KNNVectorField [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [Feature] Add support for passing extra information with KNNVectorField [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [Feature] Add support for passing extra information with KNNVectorField [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [Feature] Add support for passing extra information with KNNVectorField [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [Feature] Add support for passing extra information with KNNVectorField [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [Feature] Add support for passing extra information with KNNVectorField [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [Feature] Add support for passing extra information with KNNVectorField [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] [Feature] Add support for passing extra information with KNNVectorField [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Repeatable hunspell tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Repeatable hunspell tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Repeatable hunspell tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Repeatable hunspell tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Repeatable hunspell tests [lucene] via GitHub
• Re: [PR] Adjust assert merge flakiness due to fencepost error [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Relation check within 1D BKD Leaves [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Relation check within 1D BKD Leaves [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Relation check within 1D BKD Leaves [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Relation check within 1D BKD Leaves [lucene] via GitHub
• Re: [PR] Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF) in TopDocs [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF) in TopDocs [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF) in TopDocs [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF) in TopDocs [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF) in TopDocs [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF) in TopDocs [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF) in TopDocs [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF) in TopDocs [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF) in TopDocs [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF) in TopDocs [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Simplify operations by avoiding calculation of extra bitwise operations [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Simplify operations by avoiding calculation of extra bitwise operations [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Simplify operations by avoiding calculation of extra bitwise operations [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Simplify operations by avoiding calculation of extra bitwise operations [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Simplify operations by avoiding calculation of extra bitwise operations [lucene] via GitHub
• [I] Make multi-field search a first-class citizen [lucene] via GitHub
• [I] Simplify bitwise operations in DefaultVectorUtilSupport [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Simplify bitwise operations in DefaultVectorUtilSupport [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Simplify bitwise operations in DefaultVectorUtilSupport [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Simplify bitwise operations in DefaultVectorUtilSupport [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Simplify bitwise operations in DefaultVectorUtilSupport [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Simplify bitwise operations in DefaultVectorUtilSupport [lucene] via GitHub
• Re: [PR] hunspell: improve tolerateAffixRuleCountMismatches() for common problems [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] hunspell: improve tolerateAffixRuleCountMismatches() for common problems [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] [Unit] Increase Dynamic Range Faceting coverage by adding previously nonexistent unit tests [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Utility classes to make it easier to use sandbox facet API for most common cases [lucene] via GitHub
• Re: [I] Figure out why hunspell tests occasionally fail and make them more consistent [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Figure out why hunspell tests occasionally fail and make them more consistent [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Figure out why hunspell tests occasionally fail and make them more consistent [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Figure out why hunspell tests occasionally fail and make them more consistent [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Figure out why hunspell tests occasionally fail and make them more consistent [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Figure out why hunspell tests occasionally fail and make them more consistent [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Figure out why hunspell tests occasionally fail and make them more consistent [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Figure out why hunspell tests occasionally fail and make them more consistent [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Figure out why hunspell tests occasionally fail and make them more consistent [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Figure out why hunspell tests occasionally fail and make them more consistent [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Move `CombinedFieldQuery` to the code module. [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Move `CombinedFieldQuery` to the core module. [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Move `CombinedFieldQuery` to the core module. [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Move `CombinedFieldQuery` to the core module. [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Remove duplicates from the hnsw recall testing [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Remove duplicates from the hnsw recall testing [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Remove duplicates from the hnsw recall testing [lucene] via GitHub
• [I] Hnsw format testRecall failing [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Hnsw format testRecall failing [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Hnsw format testRecall failing [lucene] via GitHub
• Re: [I] Look into ACORN-1, or another algorithm to aid in filtered HNSW search [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Fix TestForTooMuchCloning flakiness [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix TestForTooMuchCloning flakiness [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix TestForTooMuchCloning flakiness [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix TestForTooMuchCloning flakiness [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix TestForTooMuchCloning flakiness [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Remove some randomness from flaky BaseVectorSimilarityQueryTestCase#testFallbackToExact [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Remove some randomness from flaky BaseVectorSimilarityQueryTestCase#testFallbackToExact [lucene] via GitHub
• [I] TestByteVectorSimilaryQuery failure on windows [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] TestByteVectorSimilaryQuery failure on windows [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] TestByteVectorSimilaryQuery failure on windows [lucene] via GitHub
• Re: [PR] Clean up more dead states creation by Automata/Operations [lucene] via GitHub
• [I] Evaluate bumping the minimum compile version. [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Evaluate bumping the minimum compile Java version [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Evaluate bumping the minimum compile Java version [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [I] Bump Lucene 11.0.0 minimum required Java version to 25 [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Enable error-prone checks for NonFinalStaticField [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Enable error-prone checks for NonFinalStaticField [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Enable error-prone checks for NonFinalStaticField [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Enable error-prone checks for NonFinalStaticField [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Enable error-prone checks for NonFinalStaticField [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Enable error-prone checks for NonFinalStaticField [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Enable error-prone checks for NonFinalStaticField [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Enable error-prone checks for NonFinalStaticField [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] Fix failure found by TestOperations.testGetRandomAcceptedString [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] Fix failure found by TestOperations.testGetRandomAcceptedString [lucene] via GitHub
• [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub
  • Re: [PR] OptimisticKnnVectorQuery [lucene] via GitHub

• Earlier messages
• Later messages