Found 90,590 results in 0.032 seconds. Displaying page 9 of 9,059, sorted by
Sent 2010-03-09 by Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@...>
On Mar 9, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
>
>> Re: Nutch components - those that are reusable in Lucene or Solr
>> contexts eventually find their way to respective projects, witness
>> e.g. CommonGrams.
>
> I...
Sent 2010-03-09 by Michael McCandless <lucene@...>
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> On 2010-03-09 11:40, Michael McCandless wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
>>
>> So.... can/should we freely poach across all our sub projects?
>
> In my opinion: with prope...
Sent 2010-03-09 by Andrzej Bialecki <ab@...>
On 2010-03-09 11:40, Michael McCandless wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
>
>> Re: Nutch components - those that are reusable in Lucene or Solr
>> contexts eventually find their way to respective projects, witness
>> e.g. CommonGrams.
>
> In fact I t...
Sent 2010-03-09 by Michael McCandless <lucene@...>
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> Re: Nutch components - those that are reusable in Lucene or Solr
> contexts eventually find their way to respective projects, witness
> e.g. CommonGrams.
In fact I think this is a great example -- as far as I can tell,
Co...
Sent 2010-03-09 by Andrzej Bialecki <ab@...>
On 2010-03-09 05:24, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> In the end, for me anyway, the current separation hurts Lucene a good
> deal as much as it hurts Solr, if not more. Likewise, I wish some of
> the Nutch committers would speak up, as I'm sure there are some
> pieces of Nutch that are "core" too, but...
Sent 2010-03-09 by Michael McCandless <lucene@...>
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 01:13:53PM -0500, Michael McCandless wrote:
>> I think we can actually do so w/o losing Lucene's loose typing if we
>> simply peeled out [say] a FieldType class that holds the settings you
>>...
Sent 2010-03-09 by Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@...>
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> Please vote for the proposal quoted below to merge lucene/solr development.
+0 with my PMC member hat on, as I think this matter is up to the
Lucene and Solr developers to decide.
That said, I generally think having ...
Sent 2010-03-09 by Ian Holsman <lists@...>
guys.. there is a lot of discussion going on.
and a awful lot of voting.
and as a interesting onlooker, I am really confused about what exactly
the vote is for.. there are so many interjections and clarifications
that I'm not sure
what is going on
can we stop calling for a vote for say 72 hour...
Sent 2010-03-09 by Michael McCandless <lucene@...>
+1
Mike
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> Apoligies in advance for calling yet another vote, but I just wanted
> to make sure this was official.
> Mike's second VOTE thread could probably technically stand on it's own
> (since it included PMC votes), but ...
Sent 2010-03-09 by Marvin Humphrey <marvin@...>
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 02:23:47PM -0500, Michael McCandless wrote:
> For a large index the stats will be stable after re-indexing only a
> few more docs.
Well, not if there's been huge churn on other nodes in the interim.
> No... the stat is avg tf within the doc.
Don't you need the *total*...
