Let's not commit more stuff to 7.0, unless it's a blocker as it gets hard to track. At this time, the only commits that would be going in to 7.0 are the ones that Varun spoke to me about back porting. Once that is done, I'll cut an RC (most likely tomorrow). In the meanwhile, I'll work on the release notes, and making sure that the CHANGES are good for 7.0.
Anshum On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 8:33 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < [email protected]> wrote: > I've added SOLR-11183 to the release branch. Please let me know if someone > has any concerns. > Thanks, > Ishan > > On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Yonik Seeley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11262 >> I don't know if it has implications for 7.0 or not. >> >> From the issue: >> """This means that any code using PushWriter (via MapWriter or >> IteratorWriter) will be broken if one tries to use XML response >> format. This may easily go unnoticed if one is not using XML response >> format in testing (JSON or binary is frequently used).""" >> >> >> -Yonik >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Noble Paul <[email protected]> wrote: >> > sorry for the last minute notice. I need to fix the folowing as well. >> > It may take a few hours >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11239 >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Andrzej Białecki >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Then, if I may be so bold, I’d like to slip in SOLR-11235, which is a >> simple >> >> AlreadyClosedException prevention fix. Patch is ready, tests are >> passing. >> >> >> >> On 14 Aug 2017, at 19:17, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Thanks Ab. >> >> >> >> I'll cut an RC on Wednesday, so that both, I get the time, and also >> that the >> >> tests get some time on Jenkins. >> >> >> >> Anshum >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:29 AM Andrzej Białecki >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> I’ve committed the fix for SOLR-11221 to branch_7_0 (and branch_7x and >> >>> master). >> >>> >> >>> On 12 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Andrzej Białecki >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Anshum, >> >>> >> >>> The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required >> larger >> >>> changes than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that >> is not >> >>> so well tested… I added a test that used to fail without this change, >> and >> >>> manual testing confirms that metrics are now correctly reported after >> core >> >>> reloads. >> >>> >> >>> We could postpone this fix to 7.0.1 if there are objections, but I >> think >> >>> it should go in to 7.0 - without the fix JMX reporting is surely >> broken, >> >>> with the fix it’s only a possibility ;) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 19:59, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for the report Mark! >> >>> >> >>> and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed. >> >>> >> >>> Anshum >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken. >> >>>> >> >>>> Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch: >> >>>> http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811 >> >>>> >> >>>> - Mark >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe < >> [email protected]> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known >> critical >> >>>>> bug. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi Ab, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait, >> >>>>> depending upon the impact, and the time required to fix it. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Anshum >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki >> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX >> monitoring. We >> >>>>>> could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do >> 7.0.1, or wait >> >>>>>> until it’s fixed. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can >> >>>>>> evaluate that for an rc as well. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> - Mark >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta < >> [email protected]> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Good news! >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after >> giving >> >>>>>>> Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this >> on >> >>>>>>> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope >> shouldn't be the >> >>>>>>> case. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Anshum >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I worked through the list of issues with the >> >>>>>>>> "numeric-tries-to-points” label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker >> that seemed >> >>>>>>>> reasonable, on the assumption that we should at a minimum give >> clear error >> >>>>>>>> messages for points non-compatibility. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m >> >>>>>>>> willing to discuss on the issues. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now. I >> >>>>>>>> would welcome assistance in clearing them up. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of >> which >> >>>>>>>> there are currently 12: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> < >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+in+(SOLR,LUCENE)+AND+fixVersion=7.0+AND+priority=Blocker+AND+resolution=Unresolved >> > >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>> Steve >> >>>>>>>> www.lucidworks.com >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta < >> [email protected]> >> >>>>>>>> > wrote: >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else >> has a >> >>>>>>>> > spare cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do. >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > -Anshum >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett >> >>>>>>>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all >> >>>>>>>> > Trie* >> >>>>>>>> > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working >> on. As >> >>>>>>>> > he >> >>>>>>>> > noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. >> Is >> >>>>>>>> > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ >> >>>>>>>> > more >> >>>>>>>> > weeks? >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with >> >>>>>>>> > PointFields and make a case if any should be considered >> blockers >> >>>>>>>> > for >> >>>>>>>> > 7.0. I think they all share a label: >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter >> >>>>>>>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to >> >>>>>>>> > > deprecate >> >>>>>>>> > > : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 >> release >> >>>>>>>> > > until >> >>>>>>>> > > : that's done, it's more than just updating the example >> schemas >> >>>>>>>> > > if we >> >>>>>>>> > > : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to >> fix >> >>>>>>>> > > the tests >> >>>>>>>> > > : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for >> >>>>>>>> > > users. And >> >>>>>>>> > > : to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more >> >>>>>>>> > > volunteers. >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how >> >>>>>>>> > > people can >> >>>>>>>> > > help out... >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807 >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > -Hoss >> >>>>>>>> > > http://www.lucidworks.com/ >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>>>>>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>>>>>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>>>>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>>>>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- >> >>>>>> - Mark >> >>>>>> about.me/markrmiller >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> - Mark >> >>>> about.me/markrmiller >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > ----------------------------------------------------- >> > Noble Paul >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >
