lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: bunch of newbie queries, PS
Date Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:09:59 GMT
Hoss -- 

Thanks for reply -- 

>Paul: your subject linke seems to indicate that your email is a followup 
>to previous questions, however i don't seem to have ever seen those 
>questions posted on the list, and i can't seem to find any previous emails 
>from you in any of hte online archives -- so if that is the case you may 
>want to resend your questions.
Oh, probably more user-error on my part -- I tried to post "Bunch of newbie queries", and
after getting some kind of "that failed" reply, went through several hoops to register, at
the end of which I somehow assumed "OK, now my message will get posted." (Sort of like those
web-logins, where after you register, then you are redirected back to the page to which you
were originally headed.) 

Here's the first of those "newbie queries", not yet answered (the second is effectively answered,
and the third was basically a plea for some version of a "how to do really really really simple
things with Lucene" guide, since the one at the website is (cough) just way beyond where I
am, so far. Once I have learned a little more, I'll re-post a more informed version of that.

the "anonymous" SVN (
does not work for me (I am using Eclipse 3.3, and have the subversion plug-in, v.
1.2.4, and have successfully checked out code using SVN from other repositories).
Apparently here I need a user-id and pwd -- what is that or where do I get one? 

(Since I've managed to download the source-jars, I guess I don't really need to know how to
do this, but would still like to know.) 


>: ... -- every link that purports 
>: to take me to an old version takes me to 
>: -- it would help a 
>: lot (and would be easy to do, no?) if all the links to old stuff went to 
>: instead. (Not 
>: necessarily that particular mirror, of course.)
>I'm not really sure if i'm understanding what your suggestion is -- what 
>links are you finding that "purports to take me to an old version" .. can 
>you give us specific examples? (ie: "On 
>there is a link with the text "Get 1.9" that really links to ...")
Allowing for the explanation below ("preserving history"), it seems like there may not be
a way to do what I had hoped for. Here's an example: I poke around, looking for 2.2; I get
to here:

OK, cool, now I click on ==>> Both binary and source releases are available for download
from the Apache Mirrors

And find myself on the "mirror-selection" page; ok, fine, I just take the default, and ...

I get to the *current* download page:
(at the chosen mirror). 

So, my expectation was that "a link called 'download' on a page clearly labeled 'version nnn'
will take me to download version nnn (not version 'current')".  

Maybe the closest one could get is to rephrase (from now on) the sentence/link above, to read
something like this: 

==>> Both binary and source releases, for the <bold>current</bold> version,
are available for download from the Apache Mirrors

(That way, the sentence-and-link will always be correct.) 

>Part of the confusion may be that many pages, which are archived copies of 
>hte documentation included in each release, have generic links ....
>We do not update these links as new versions come out (and old versions 
>are archived) becuase:
>  1) these docs are archives of hte documentation included in teh releas, 
>we don't revise history.
>  2) we want to encourage visibility and downloading of the most current 
>release, since it's the one with the most current bug fixes.  ....


>can figure out if that's the situation we're talking about.  I'm also open 
>to suggestions for better ways to make the "archive" directory more 
>obvious for people who really are looking for historical releases 
>(although i'm at a loss to think of many common cases for wanting to find 
>old releases)
My use-case is pretty simple, and I'd be surprised if it were unique/rare: I am working with
someone else's code, developed on 2.2, and they are not available to migrate to 2.3; so if
I want to have their code run correctly, and to be able to debug into Lucene, I need to get
2.2-source-and-binary. (And no, having me migrate their code to 2.3 is not really an option
-- I have no cycles, or Lucene-expertise, to do that.) So I really truly need an old version.

Anyway, I have it now. 


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message