Details

    • Type: Improvement Improvement
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 2.8.4
    • Fix Version/s: 2.9
    • Component/s: Core & storage
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      Included with JSPWiki 2.8.4 is Lucene 2.0.0 (build 2006-05-26). Lucene should be updated to the current Lucene Version 3.6
      (we have the problem, that Lucene does not index all of a very large number of pages)

        Activity

        Transition Time In Source Status Execution Times Last Executer Last Execution Date
        Open Open Resolved Resolved
        15d 2h 38m 1 Harry Metske 09/Jun/12 12:16
        Resolved Resolved Closed Closed
        175d 23h 24m 1 Florian Holeczek 02/Dec/12 10:40
        Florian Holeczek made changes -
        Status Resolved [ 5 ] Closed [ 6 ]
        Hide
        Florian Holeczek added a comment -

        Closing this, since 2.9 has been released

        Show
        Florian Holeczek added a comment - Closing this, since 2.9 has been released
        Harry Metske made changes -
        Status Open [ 1 ] Resolved [ 5 ]
        Resolution Fixed [ 1 ]
        Hide
        Harry Metske added a comment -

        Fixed in 2.9.0-incubating-3.

        Lucene upgraded to current version 3.6.0.

        Show
        Harry Metske added a comment - Fixed in 2.9.0-incubating-3. Lucene upgraded to current version 3.6.0.
        Hide
        Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez added a comment -

        +1 on committing on current trunk. 1st incubating release is in a separate tag, and we can always roll up new releases, so I think it's ok to push new things on trunk...

        Regarding the version, perhaps it should be 2.9.1-svn-0? just to leave the "incubating" suffix for releases. Regarding mantaining the 2.9.0 scheme or switching to 2.9.1, I would be more inclined to the latter, leaving 2.9.0 to the aforementioned tag: we vote on that tag, if any issues should arise we rename the tag to RC2, create a new 2.9.0 tag fixing the new issues, vote again, and so on. Most probably, the 2.9.0 tag won't get any troubles on becoming 2.9.0 final, so it seems to me a safe choice.

        WDYT?

        Show
        Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez added a comment - +1 on committing on current trunk. 1st incubating release is in a separate tag, and we can always roll up new releases, so I think it's ok to push new things on trunk... Regarding the version, perhaps it should be 2.9.1-svn-0? just to leave the "incubating" suffix for releases. Regarding mantaining the 2.9.0 scheme or switching to 2.9.1, I would be more inclined to the latter, leaving 2.9.0 to the aforementioned tag: we vote on that tag, if any issues should arise we rename the tag to RC2, create a new 2.9.0 tag fixing the new issues, vote again, and so on. Most probably, the 2.9.0 tag won't get any troubles on becoming 2.9.0 final, so it seems to me a safe choice. WDYT?
        Harry Metske made changes -
        Fix Version/s 2.9 [ 12319521 ]
        Fix Version/s 2.9.1 [ 12321249 ]
        Harry Metske made changes -
        Fix Version/s 2.9.1 [ 12321249 ]
        Hide
        Harry Metske added a comment -

        I have the fix available for an upgrade to the current Lucene version (3.6.0).

        Do we want it committed now, or wait until the first incubating release has been done ?

        Show
        Harry Metske added a comment - I have the fix available for an upgrade to the current Lucene version (3.6.0). Do we want it committed now, or wait until the first incubating release has been done ?
        Harry Metske made changes -
        Field Original Value New Value
        Assignee Harry Metske [ metskem ]
        Hide
        Harry Metske added a comment -

        Hmmm, the API has changed quite a bit , this will cost some more time to adopt, but nevertheless...

        Show
        Harry Metske added a comment - Hmmm, the API has changed quite a bit , this will cost some more time to adopt, but nevertheless...
        Hide
        Harry Metske added a comment -

        Jürgen, I agree with you that it's an old version, and I can have a look at upgrading it.
        Do you have a reference to a Lucene bug that describes the problem you are experiencing ?

        regards,
        Harry

        Show
        Harry Metske added a comment - Jürgen, I agree with you that it's an old version, and I can have a look at upgrading it. Do you have a reference to a Lucene bug that describes the problem you are experiencing ? regards, Harry
        Jürgen Weber created issue -

          People

          • Assignee:
            Harry Metske
            Reporter:
            Jürgen Weber
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            4 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development