zhaih merged PR #944:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/944
--
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.or
mocobeta commented on PR #940:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/940#issuecomment-1146545273
@pminkov thank you for the thorough analysis!
Looking at the result, with this fix too common words do not appear, as
expected, and too rare words still not be selected - so the resu
LuXugang commented on PR #942:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/942#issuecomment-1146538240
> Note that you will need to make the same change to
Lucene70DocValuesProducer when backporting to branch_9x
Thanks for your note.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache G
mocobeta commented on PR #943:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/943#issuecomment-1146529879
I'm also closing this for the same reason as #941.
--
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
mocobeta closed pull request #943: LUCENE-10578: Fail build if java minor/patch
version is not met the minimum requirement (for 9x)
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/943
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub an
mocobeta closed pull request #941: LUCENE-10578: Fail build if java minor/patch
version is not met the minimum requirement
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
mocobeta commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1146529457
I have little time for this right now too, will be back later if I have a
chance.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10592?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mayya Sharipova reassigned LUCENE-10592:
Assignee: Mayya Sharipova
> Should we build HNSW graph on the fly during indexin
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10583?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17546696#comment-17546696
]
Vigya Sharma commented on LUCENE-10583:
---
I was discussing this with [~mikemccand]
dweiss commented on PR #945:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/945#issuecomment-1146243865
I think this patch works for both "modes". I'm sure it can be done better
(elasticsearch folks may have more expertise here since they have a much more
complex build) but this seems to do the
dweiss commented on PR #945:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/945#issuecomment-1146190113
Yeah... I actually prefer the "idea" compilation in favor of the one that
goes through gradle... and this no longer works with this patch. :( I'll try to
take a look over the weekend if we ca
uschindler commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1146160143
Let me think about how to check the verison number for the
RUNTIME_JAVA_VERSION. We cannot call `Version.current()` there, but we may use
the verison returned by Gradle and parse it with
mocobeta commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1146147597
I'm going to close this if there are no other comments and look at a less
hacky way to check the minimum version to build Lucene (for the reason please
see the suggestions above - the curre
mocobeta commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1146137462
As for the minimum requirements, I would set them as below. If it's too old
and there are reasonable reasons to upgrade, please let me know - I'll try to
contact INFRA but it can take some
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10574?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Adrien Grand resolved LUCENE-10574.
---
Resolution: Fixed
> Remove O(n^2) from TieredMergePolicy or change defaults to one that doe
mocobeta commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1146089576
> So I am fine with current patch, but the MAXIMUM version must be 17 also
on 9.x (11 till 17).
We have another pull request #943 for 9x and the maximum major is also set
to 17.
msokolov commented on PR #945:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/945#issuecomment-1146087817
I don't really understand it, but it worked for me. I cherry picked this
patch, refreshed gradle in a still-running IDEA and then the build (which was
failing) succeeded. I also tried exiti
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10578?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17546055#comment-17546055
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-10578:
Please lets start with the versions de
uschindler commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1146081839
P.P.S: Please wait with this until after Berlinbuzzwords. I am so busy at
moment, so I can't take care of Jenkins. But maybe set lower limit to 17.0.2
and 11.0.X (X unknown).
--
This i
uschindler commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1146078452
P.S.: I will update JDK 11 and JDK 17 to latest one on Policeman Jenkins. On
ASF Jenkins we have to wait. Possily lower the limit. Very latets is not
needed. I think 17.0.2 is enough (the
uschindler commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1146076358
> I think the upper limit is set for running Gradle (the reason why it
resides in `WrapperDownloader`), not for building Lucene. I'm missing something
though.
Yes. That's true.
mocobeta commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1146074347
I think the upper limit is set for running Gradle (the reason why it resides
in `WrapperDownloader`), not for building Lucene. I'm missing something though.
--
This is an automated messag
uschindler commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1146073671
> I wanted to ask exactly this point - the version check isn't new, it is
already on main since #819.
The check is not to prevent us from creating buggy Lucene releases. It is
just
uschindler commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1146067501
> The CI jobs look just plain - checkout the latest Lucene repository then
run the gradle wrapper. I think I'm missing something, is there a way to skip
this version check for CIs?
mocobeta commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1146066066
Thanks @uschindler for noticing this.
> Why do you want to prevent 18 or 19? This will kill me with developing
project Panama and makes testing really hard.
I wanted to ask exa
uschindler commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1146065996
The reason for the current check on Maximum Java 17 has a different reason:
Gradle currently won't run with later versions anyways.
So please set a hard limit on minimum version, th
shaie commented on PR #841:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/841#issuecomment-1146061771
Hi Greg, thanks for your comments. Earlier today I tried to play with the
new API to implement some other use cases just to get a feel for how they
will work, and I realized why `HyperRect
uschindler commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1146060199
Hi, On Jenkins, the Gradle JVM is always 17, the alternatives are executed
using RUNTIME_JAVA_HOME env var.
Anyways, I do not agree with this PR at all in its current form. It shoul
mocobeta commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1145994738
I noticed some jobs run on JDK 18 and 19-EA.
https://jenkins.thetaphi.de/job/Lucene-main-Linux/34907/
```
Java: 64bit/jdk-19-ea+24 -XX:+UseCompressedOops -XX:+UseParallelGC
``
mocobeta commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1145951666
I'll wait for suggestions until next week. If there is no comments or
objection, I'll downgrade the required version to align with Apache Jenkins,
then merge this.
We can go along with C
mocobeta commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1145943313
Apache Jenkins runs jobs to make release artifacts. I downloaded the archive
(.tgz) here and extract the jar manifest.
https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Lucene/job/Lucene-Artifacts-main/
kaivalnp commented on code in PR #932:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/932#discussion_r96850
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/search/KnnVectorQuery.java:
##
@@ -225,6 +225,11 @@ public BitSetIterator getIterator(int contextOrd) {
return new BitSetI
mocobeta commented on PR #941:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/941#issuecomment-1145892261
We'd need to confirm that the latest Java 17 and 11 are installed in CI
servers.
It looks like Policeman Jenkins runs on 17.0.2 and 11.0.13 for 9x. I can't
find what version Apache's Jen
kaivalnp commented on code in PR #932:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/932#discussion_r49991
##
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/search/KnnVectorQuery.java:
##
@@ -225,6 +225,11 @@ public BitSetIterator getIterator(int contextOrd) {
return new BitSetI
mocobeta commented on PR #943:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/943#issuecomment-1145801046
With jdk 11.0.12
```
ERROR: You are using too old Java minor version. Use newer than 11.0.15,
your version: 11.0.12+7-LTS
```
With jdk 11.0.15
```
BUILD SUCCESSFUL
Deepika0510 commented on code in PR #927:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/927#discussion_r00914
##
lucene/core/src/test/org/apache/lucene/search/TestTimeLimitingBulkScorer.java:
##
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+/*
+ * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10574?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17545800#comment-17545800
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on LUCENE-10574:
--
Co
jpountz merged PR #936:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/936
--
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.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10574?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17545794#comment-17545794
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on LUCENE-10574:
--
Co
jpountz commented on PR #942:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/942#issuecomment-1145744963
Maybe also improve CheckIndex to verify that the `count` is still good after
iterating over all values? Note that you will need to make the same change to
`Lucene70DocValuesProducer` when ba
jpountz commented on PR #927:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/927#issuecomment-1145723686
> To let the user know about the partial result, I was thinking to modify
TotalHits.Relation
Letting users know whether results are partial via the `TotalHits.Relation`
could work for
gsmiller commented on PR #927:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/927#issuecomment-1145703596
@Deepika0510 thank you for taking time to work on this! I'm planning to have
a closer look and provide more feedback in the next few days. I've been
consumed with some travel this week and
gsmiller commented on PR #927:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/927#issuecomment-1145702837
@jpountz I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on asking the user to specify
the timeout as a future point-in-time where the search will be halted (as
you're suggesting above) vs. allowing t
gsmiller commented on PR #841:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/841#issuecomment-1145696479
Trying to catch up on this now. I've been traveling and it's been difficult
to find time. Thanks for all your thoughts @shaie!
I think I'm only half-following your thoughts on the dif
44 matches
Mail list logo
