[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-10557) Migrate to GitHub issue from Jira?
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17543478#comment-17543478 ] Tomoko Uchida commented on LUCENE-10557: Issue stats on 28/May/2022. *\# of total issues: 10543* *\# of unresolved issues: 1914* *Breakdown of unresolved issues* By Issue Type - Type="Bug": 679 - Type="Improvement": 790 - Type="New Feature": 173 - Type="Task": 163 - Type="Test": 42 - Type="Wish": 38 - Type="Sub-task": 29 By Affects Version (overlapped) - Version < 4.0: 175 - 4.0 <= Version < 5.0: 239 - 5.0 <= Version < 6.0: 59 - 6.0 <= Version < 7.0: 79 - 7.0 <= Version < 8.0: 58 - 8.0 <= Version < 9.0: 64 - 9.0 <= Version: 2 - No Version: 1258 By Created Date - ~ 31/Dec/2012: 544 - 1/Jan/2013 ~ 31/Dec/2013: 134 - 1/Jan/2014 ~ 31/Dec/2014: 166 - 1/Jan/2015 ~ 31/Dec/2015: 176 - 1/Jan/2016 ~ 31/Dec/2016: 139 - 1/Jan/2017 ~ 31/Dec/2017: 123 - 1/Jan/2018 ~ 31/Dec/2018: 102 - 1/Jan/2019 ~ 31/Dec/2019: 145 - 1/Jan/2020 ~ 31/Dec/2020: 120 - 1/Jan/2021 ~ 31/Dec/2021: 170 - 1/Jan/2022 ~ : 93 By Component - core: 508 - modules/analysis: 147 - modules/benchmark: 11 - modules/classification: 2 - modules/examples: 1 - modules/expressions: 3 - modules/facet: 39 - modules/grouping: 5 - modules/highlithter: 43 - modules/join: 11 - modules/luke: 2 - modules/monitor: 2 - modules/queryparser: 25 - modules/replicator: 4 - modules/sandbox: 5 - modules/spatial: 38 - modules/spatial-extras: 3 - modules/spatial3d: 6 - modules/suggest: 3 - modules/spellchecker: 11 - modules/test-framework: 5 - modules/other: 29 - release wizard: 1 - luke: 2 - general/build: 58 - general/javadocs: 15 - general/test: 22 - general/website: 19 - No Component: 916 > Migrate to GitHub issue from Jira? > -- > > Key: LUCENE-10557 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Tomoko Uchida >Priority: Major > > A few (not the majority) Apache projects already use the GitHub issue instead > of Jira. For example, > Airflow: [https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues] > BookKeeper: [https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues] > So I think it'd be technically possible that we move to GitHub issue. I have > little knowledge of how to proceed with it, I'd like to discuss whether we > should migrate to it, and if so, how to smoothly handle the migration. > The major tasks would be: > * Get a consensus about the migration among committers > * Enable Github issue on the lucene's repository (currently, it is disabled > on it) > * Build the convention or rules for issue label/milestone management > * Choose issues that should be moved to GitHub (I think too old or obsolete > issues can remain Jira.) -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.7#820007) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[GitHub] [lucene] uschindler commented on pull request #912: Initial rewrite of MMapDirectory for JDK-19 preview Panama APIs (>= JDK-19-ea+23)
uschindler commented on PR #912: URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/912#issuecomment-1140344703 I updated the PR to use an MR-JAR (multi release JAR) to implement the new functionality. It also uses Gradle's toolchain support to automatically download the JDK 19 release just to compile the MR part. This is commented out at the moment, because the Gradle toolchain API does not support EA releases. The cool thing: Once OpenJDK 19 got out of the door in September, we can enable the toochanin support an then also backport this patch to Lucene 9.x. The MR-JAR part works the following way: - The `MappedByteBuffer` part and all the Java 9+ hacks with Unsafe are moved to a new pkg-private interface `MMapIndexInputProvider`. - In the MR-JAR part for Java 19 there's a separate implementation of `MMapIndexInputProvider`, compiled with `--enable-preview` - the main `MMapDirectory` has a static initializer that tries to load and link the Java19 `MemorySegmentIndexInputProvider`. It uses method handles for that because reflection would need `setAccessible()`. If loading fails it logs a warning if Java 19 is used, but `--enable-preview` is missing on Java's command line. In all cases it falls back to the default `MappedByteBufferIndexInputProvider` implementation in the main part of JAR file. I also added distribution test that checks if the built JAR file is a correct MR-JAR and it also works with module system. The current PR still requires Java 19 as `RUNTIME_JAVA_HOME` because of missing toolchain support. To test the "legacy" byte buffer implementation, one can comment the `--enable-preview` from the test's JVM args. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[GitHub] [lucene] uschindler commented on pull request #912: Initial rewrite of MMapDirectory for JDK-19 preview Panama APIs (>= JDK-19-ea+23)
uschindler commented on PR #912: URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/912#issuecomment-1140345113 Hi @dweiss: Could you have a look at what I am planning, especially the MR-JAR and how I intend to use the Gradle toolchain API to compile against Java 19 in the future? If you know a solution how to use EA releases with Toolchain API, tell me. I gave up on this. The URLS for AdoptOpenJDK are hardcoded in Gradle, see: https://github.com/gradle/gradle/issues/14515 and https://github.com/gradle/gradle/issues/14814 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Created] (LUCENE-10594) Duplicated value should be involve in SortedSetDocValues#docValueCount() in MemoryIndex
Lu Xugang created LUCENE-10594: -- Summary: Duplicated value should be involve in SortedSetDocValues#docValueCount() in MemoryIndex Key: LUCENE-10594 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10594 Project: Lucene - Core Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Lu Xugang Base on LUCENE-10188 , SortedSetDocValues#docValueCount() in MemoryIndex should keep the same semantic that duplicated values should also be involve in calculating count. Due to `dvBytesRefHashValuesSet` only record number of unique values, so a additional `count` is needed. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.7#820007) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[GitHub] [lucene] LuXugang opened a new pull request, #928: LUCENE-10594: Duplicated value should be involve in SortedSetDocValues#docValueCount() in MemoryIndex
LuXugang opened a new pull request, #928: URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/928 Base on [LUCENE-10188](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10188) , SortedSetDocValues#docValueCount() in MemoryIndex should keep the same semantic that duplicated values should also be involve in calculating count. Due to `dvBytesRefHashValuesSet` only record number of unique values, so a additional `count` is needed. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-10557) Migrate to GitHub issue from Jira?
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17543571#comment-17543571 ] Tomoko Uchida commented on LUCENE-10557: Operational policies in other projects on GitHub (randomly selected). Kubernetes (https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes) * Uses Milestone for version management * Uses Labels for categorizing/adding metadata to issues/PRs * Only limited members can add/edit Labels * Uses Issue templates to add issue type (kind) when opening one ** Bug report/Feature request/Test Failure/... Elasticsearch (https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch) * Uses Labels for version management and categorizing/adding metadata to issues/PRs * Only limited members can add/edit Labels * Uses Issue templates to add issue type (kind) when opening one OpenSearch (https://github.com/opensearch-project/OpenSearch) * Uses Labels for version management and categorizing/adding metadata to issues/PRs * Only limited members can add/edit Labels * Uses Issue templates to add issue type (kind) when opening one Apache Solr Operator (https://github.com/apache/solr-operator) * Uses Milestone for version management * Uses Labels for categorizing/adding metadata to issues/PRs Apache Airflow (https://github.com/apache/airflow) * Uses Milestone for version management * Uses Labels for categorizing/adding metadata to issues/PRs * Only limited members can add/edit Labels * Uses Issue templates to add issue type (kind) when opening one Apache Lucene.NET (https://github.com/apache/lucenenet) * Uses Milestone for version management * Uses Labels for categorizing/adding metadata to issues/PRs * Only limited members can add/edit Labels Spring Framework (https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework) * Uses Milestone for version management * Uses Labels for categorizing/adding metadata to issues/PRs * Only limited members can add/edit Labels Gradle (https://github.com/gradle/gradle) * Uses Milestone for version management * Uses Labels for categorizing/adding metadata to issues/PRs * Only limited members can add/edit Labels * Uses Issue templates to add issue type (kind) when opening one > Migrate to GitHub issue from Jira? > -- > > Key: LUCENE-10557 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Tomoko Uchida >Priority: Major > > A few (not the majority) Apache projects already use the GitHub issue instead > of Jira. For example, > Airflow: [https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues] > BookKeeper: [https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues] > So I think it'd be technically possible that we move to GitHub issue. I have > little knowledge of how to proceed with it, I'd like to discuss whether we > should migrate to it, and if so, how to smoothly handle the migration. > The major tasks would be: > * Get a consensus about the migration among committers > * Enable Github issue on the lucene's repository (currently, it is disabled > on it) > * Build the convention or rules for issue label/milestone management > * Choose issues that should be moved to GitHub (I think too old or obsolete > issues can remain Jira.) -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.7#820007) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-10557) Migrate to GitHub issue from Jira?
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17543572#comment-17543572 ] Tomoko Uchida commented on LUCENE-10557: Migration plan (an early draft) * Set a criteria which issues should be migrated to GitHub issue ** e.g. Migrate all unresolved issues * Set an operational policy for version/metadata management ** Kubernetas's and Apache Airflow's method looks good to me ** Map current JIRA metadata to GitHub milestones/labels ** ... needs some trials and errors with a sandbox repository * Prepare migration script * Enable GitHub issue (raise an issue on INFRA) * Set a schedule for migration > Migrate to GitHub issue from Jira? > -- > > Key: LUCENE-10557 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Tomoko Uchida >Priority: Major > > A few (not the majority) Apache projects already use the GitHub issue instead > of Jira. For example, > Airflow: [https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues] > BookKeeper: [https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues] > So I think it'd be technically possible that we move to GitHub issue. I have > little knowledge of how to proceed with it, I'd like to discuss whether we > should migrate to it, and if so, how to smoothly handle the migration. > The major tasks would be: > * Get a consensus about the migration among committers > * Enable Github issue on the lucene's repository (currently, it is disabled > on it) > * Build the convention or rules for issue label/milestone management > * Choose issues that should be moved to GitHub (I think too old or obsolete > issues can remain Jira.) -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.7#820007) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Comment Edited] (LUCENE-10557) Migrate to GitHub issue from Jira?
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17543572#comment-17543572 ] Tomoko Uchida edited comment on LUCENE-10557 at 5/29/22 6:44 AM: - Migration plan (an early draft) * Set a criteria which issues should be migrated to GitHub issue ** e.g. Migrate all unresolved issues * Set an operational policy for version/metadata management ** Kubernetas's and Apache Airflow's method looks good to me ** Map current JIRA metadata to GitHub milestones/labels ** ... needs some trials and errors with a sandbox repository * Prepare migration scripts * Enable GitHub issue (raise an issue on INFRA) * Set a schedule for migration was (Author: tomoko uchida): Migration plan (an early draft) * Set a criteria which issues should be migrated to GitHub issue ** e.g. Migrate all unresolved issues * Set an operational policy for version/metadata management ** Kubernetas's and Apache Airflow's method looks good to me ** Map current JIRA metadata to GitHub milestones/labels ** ... needs some trials and errors with a sandbox repository * Prepare migration script * Enable GitHub issue (raise an issue on INFRA) * Set a schedule for migration > Migrate to GitHub issue from Jira? > -- > > Key: LUCENE-10557 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Sub-task >Reporter: Tomoko Uchida >Priority: Major > > A few (not the majority) Apache projects already use the GitHub issue instead > of Jira. For example, > Airflow: [https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues] > BookKeeper: [https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues] > So I think it'd be technically possible that we move to GitHub issue. I have > little knowledge of how to proceed with it, I'd like to discuss whether we > should migrate to it, and if so, how to smoothly handle the migration. > The major tasks would be: > * Get a consensus about the migration among committers > * Enable Github issue on the lucene's repository (currently, it is disabled > on it) > * Build the convention or rules for issue label/milestone management > * Choose issues that should be moved to GitHub (I think too old or obsolete > issues can remain Jira.) -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.20.7#820007) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
