mocobeta commented on a change in pull request #643:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/643#discussion_r800035383
##
File path:
lucene/analysis/kuromoji/src/java/org/apache/lucene/analysis/ja/dict/BinaryDictionary.java
##
@@ -154,6 +153,98 @@ protected BinaryDictionary
mocobeta commented on a change in pull request #643:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/643#discussion_r800035383
##
File path:
lucene/analysis/kuromoji/src/java/org/apache/lucene/analysis/ja/dict/BinaryDictionary.java
##
@@ -154,6 +153,98 @@ protected BinaryDictionary
uschindler commented on a change in pull request #643:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/643#discussion_r800042290
##
File path:
lucene/analysis/kuromoji/src/java/org/apache/lucene/analysis/ja/dict/BinaryDictionary.java
##
@@ -154,6 +153,98 @@ protected BinaryDictiona
mocobeta commented on pull request #643:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/643#issuecomment-1030594098
Encountered an issue with `@Deprecated(forRemoval = true)`. We can't call
them even from test cases since `@SuppressWarnings("deprecation")` doesn't work
when it is marked as "fo
mocobeta commented on a change in pull request #643:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/643#discussion_r800043364
##
File path:
lucene/analysis/kuromoji/src/java/org/apache/lucene/analysis/ja/dict/BinaryDictionary.java
##
@@ -154,6 +153,98 @@ protected BinaryDictionary
uschindler commented on pull request #643:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/643#issuecomment-1030599745
> Encountered an issue with `@Deprecated(forRemoval = true)`. We can't call
them even from test cases since `@SuppressWarnings("deprecation")` doesn't work
when it is marked as
uschindler commented on pull request #643:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/643#issuecomment-1030601129
In general I like the idea here, but I would do one change: You already
defined a new functional interface, but the public methods taking Supplyier. I
am against uselessly wra
mocobeta commented on pull request #643:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/643#issuecomment-1030612811
I added `@SuppressWarnings("removal")` to tests that invoke deprecated
methods for now - to keep the tests as-is on branch_9x. I will remove the
obsolete methods and change tests
uschindler commented on a change in pull request #643:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/643#discussion_r800054132
##
File path: lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/IOUtils.java
##
@@ -526,4 +526,14 @@ public static void fsync(Path fileToSync, boolean isDir)
t
uschindler commented on pull request #643:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/643#issuecomment-1030618068
> I added `@SuppressWarnings("removal")` to tests that invoke deprecated
methods for now - to keep the tests as-is on branch_9x. I will remove the
obsolete methods and change t
uschindler commented on a change in pull request #643:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/643#discussion_r800054132
##
File path: lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/IOUtils.java
##
@@ -526,4 +526,14 @@ public static void fsync(Path fileToSync, boolean isDir)
t
uschindler commented on a change in pull request #643:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/643#discussion_r800054704
##
File path: lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/IOUtils.java
##
@@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ public static void fsync(Path fileToSync, boolean isDir)
th
mocobeta commented on a change in pull request #643:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/643#discussion_r800056859
##
File path: lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/IOUtils.java
##
@@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ public static void fsync(Path fileToSync, boolean isDir)
thro
dweiss commented on pull request #643:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/643#issuecomment-1030657687
> The trick was to just make the exceptions invisible to the stupid javac
compiler :-) - it is perfectly legal code and won't break as it follows the
laguage spec. It is just casti
gsmiller commented on pull request #651:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/651#issuecomment-1030711669
Hmm, the github workflows don't seem to be running on this change. So I'm
not sure if this change is working or not. Will see if I can figure it out.
--
This is an automated me
gsmiller opened a new pull request #651:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/651
Not entirely sure how to test this outside of opening a PR with the change,
so apologies if I have to iterate a bit to get this right in the PR.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Ser
mocobeta commented on pull request #651:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/651#issuecomment-1030744281
I cherry-picked this in https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/643 and it
started to work, thanks!
![Screenshot from 2022-02-06
12-28-32](https://user-images.githubusercontent.
mocobeta commented on pull request #651:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/651#issuecomment-1030746284
I wonder we could create a custom composite action to share the JDK set up
between workflows.
I have not tried but noticed custom action recently supports "use" to
combine oth
mocobeta edited a comment on pull request #651:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/651#issuecomment-1030746284
I wonder if we could create a custom composite action to share the JDK set
up between workflows.
I have not tried but noticed custom action recently supports "use" to
c
mocobeta edited a comment on pull request #651:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/651#issuecomment-1030746284
I wonder if we could create a custom composite action to share the JDK set
up between workflows.
I have not tried but noticed custom action recently supports "use" to
c
20 matches
Mail list logo
