Thanks Jan, Mike, and everyone else. This reads so much better, and I agree that this should be the standard structure.
I’m just updating the website right now. Once done, I plan to send out the notification. In case someone still wants to add/edit the notes, “now" is the time. -Anshum > On Sep 20, 2017, at 6:16 AM, Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok, so I took the liberty of updating > https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote70 > <https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote70> with my changes > Note that the previous version of the release notes can still be found at > https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote70?action=info > <https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote70?action=info> for reference > > Joel, look at the bullet I re-added about Math expressions, feel free to jump > in and modify now that it is in the Wiki. > > Cassandra, I totally agree about ref guide syncing and communicating one > message. > Also the practice of listing some of the major features introduced in 6.x is > a good thing. > If you have wording improvements to my summaries, please chime in, I’m not a > technical writer :) > > And please, I was serious about choosing 7 major features and not adding > random single improvements. The list has already creeped from 7 to 9 bullets. > If you want to add something, then ask youself which of the other bullets > that are less important to MOST USERS and then replace that bullet instead of > adding more. Agree? > > -- > Jan Høydahl, search solution architect > Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com <http://www.cominvent.com/> > >> 20. sep. 2017 kl. 14.34 skrev Joel Bernstein <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> >> Hi Jan, >> >> I added a note for Streaming Expressions in the comments. Could you add that >> to the release notes? >> >> >> >> >> Joel Bernstein >> http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ <http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/> >> >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:17 AM, David Smiley <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Excellent Jan! Editorial summaries should be the standard our users expect. >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:51 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> I think the (Solr) release notes feels more like a dump of JIRA descriptions >> than an editorial summary of main highlights. >> People who want to dive deep can read CHANGES, let’s choose top-7 largest >> changes, describe them editorially and refer to CHANGES for the rest >> including upgrade notes? >> >> I made a total re-write here >> https://gist.github.com/3afd5095834ee9e5d60b2eb304c21bec >> <https://gist.github.com/3afd5095834ee9e5d60b2eb304c21bec> including a >> general warning at the end that this is a major release that removes >> deprecated stuff and that you should read the upgrade notes. >> Anshum, feel free to disagree and discard or use at will! >> >> -- >> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect >> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com <http://www.cominvent.com/> >> >>> 19. sep. 2017 kl. 22.44 skrev Anshum Gupta <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >>> >>> Please find the release notes here: >>> >>> Lucene: https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseNote70 >>> <https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseNote70> >>> >>> Solr: https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote70 >>> <https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote70> >>> >>> I am cleaning up the ‘upgrading from 6x’ section to make it shorter but >>> feel free to either fix/add things to this. I pushed the artifacts last >>> night so there are still about 8 hours to the 24 hours period. >>> >>> I’ll use the 8 hours to fix the website etc. and announce once all of this >>> is wrapped up! >>> >>> -Anshum >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Aug 28, 2017, at 10:46 PM, Varun Thacker <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't think holding up the release process infinitely till we stabilize >>>> all the tests is an option. On the other hand getting an RC to build is >>>> pretty difficult ( I am facing the same problem with 6.6.1 ) and I am sure >>>> people will run into this while voting for the release? >>>> >>>> We could identify the top 2/3 tests which fail regularly while building >>>> the RC and either disable them or see if someone volunteers to fix them ? >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> > Those flaky Solr tests are annoying since people will also run into >>>> > failures when >>>> > checking the RC? Should we disable these tests on the 7.0 branch so that >>>> > building >>>> > and verifying this RC isn't annoying to everybody working on this >>>> > release? >>>> >>>> +1. If it is hampering the release process, I think we should either not >>>> release without fixing them, or disable them for release (building, >>>> verifying). >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Anshum Gupta <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> Though those failing tests are annoying, I would not recommend ignoring >>>> those tests. We can manually ignore those test failures when we are >>>> testing stuff out though. >>>> >>>> -Anshum >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Aug 28, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Adrien Grand <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Those flaky Solr tests are annoying since people will also run into >>>>> failures when checking the RC? Should we disable these tests on the 7.0 >>>>> branch so that building and verifying this RC isn't annoying to everybody >>>>> working on this release? >>>>> >>>>> Le lun. 28 août 2017 à 19:23, Anshum Gupta <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : >>>>> Thanks Adrien! It worked with a fresh clone, at least ant check-licenses >>>>> worked, so I’m assuming the RC creation would work too. >>>>> I’m running that, and it might take a couple of hours for me to create >>>>> one, as a few SolrCloud tests are still a little flakey and they fail >>>>> occasionally. >>>>> >>>>> -Anshum >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 28, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Anshum Gupta <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Adrien, >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, ant check-licenses fails with the same error, and so does ant >>>>>> validate (from the root dir). This is after running ant clean -f. >>>>>> >>>>>> BUILD FAILED >>>>>> /Users/anshum/workspace/lucene-solr/build.xml:117: The following error >>>>>> occurred while executing this line: >>>>>> /Users/anshum/workspace/lucene-solr/lucene/build.xml:90: The following >>>>>> error occurred while executing this line: >>>>>> /Users/anshum/workspace/lucene-solr/lucene/tools/custom-tasks.xml:62: >>>>>> JAR resource does not exist: analysis/icu/lib/icu4j-56.1.jar >>>>>> >>>>>> I didn’t realize that the dependency was upgraded, and what confuses me >>>>>> is that the file actually exists. >>>>>> >>>>>> anshum$ ls analysis/icu/lib/icu4j-5 >>>>>> icu4j-56.1.jar icu4j-59.1.jar >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems like it’s something that git clean, ant clean clean-jars etc. >>>>>> didn’t fix. This is really surprising but I’ll try and checking out >>>>>> again and creating and RC (after checking for the dependencies). >>>>>> I think ant should be responsible for cleaning this up, and not git so >>>>>> there’s something off there. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Anshum >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2017, at 8:51 AM, Adrien Grand <[email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You mentioned you tried to run the script multiple times. Have you run >>>>>>> git clean at some point? Maybe this is due to a stale working copy? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le lun. 28 août 2017 à 08:53, Adrien Grand <[email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : >>>>>>> Hi Anshum, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does running ant check-licenses from the Lucene directory fail as well? >>>>>>> The error message that you are getting looks weird to me since Lucene >>>>>>> 7.0 depends on ICU 59.1, not 56.1 since >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7540 >>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7540>. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le ven. 25 août 2017 à 23:42, Anshum Gupta <[email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : >>>>>>> A quick question, in case someone has an idea around what’s going on. >>>>>>> When I run the following command: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/buildAndPushRelease.py --push-local >>>>>>> /Users/anshum/solr/release/7.0.0/rc0 --rc-num 1 --sign <my-key> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I end up with the following error: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BUILD FAILED >>>>>>> /Users/anshum/workspace/lucene-solr/build.xml:117: The following error >>>>>>> occurred while executing this line: >>>>>>> /Users/anshum/workspace/lucene-solr/lucene/build.xml:90: The following >>>>>>> error occurred while executing this line: >>>>>>> /Users/anshum/workspace/lucene-solr/lucene/tools/custom-tasks.xml:62: >>>>>>> JAR resource does not exist: analysis/icu/lib/icu4j-56.1.jar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any idea as to what’s going on? This generally fails after the tests >>>>>>> have run, and the script has processed for about 45 minutes and it’s >>>>>>> consistent i.e. all the times when the tests pass, the process fails >>>>>>> with this warning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can also confirm that this file exists at >>>>>>> lucene/analysis/icy/lib/icu4j-56.1.jar . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Has anyone else seen this when working on the release? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Anshum >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 23, 2017, at 4:21 AM, Andrzej Białecki >>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 23 Aug 2017, at 13:06, Uwe Schindler <[email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Keep in mind that there is also branch_7_0. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Right, but the changes related to these issues were committed to >>>>>>>> master before branch_7_0 was created, and these specific issues are >>>>>>>> only about back-porting to 6x. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Uww >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am 23. August 2017 12:26:42 MESZ schrieb "Andrzej Białecki" >>>>>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 23 Aug 2017, at 08:15, Anshum Gupta <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I also found more issues when comparing 7x, with 6x this time. I’ll >>>>>>>>>> take a look at wether it’s just the CHANGES entries or have these >>>>>>>>>> actually missed the branch. I assume it’s just the CHANGES, but want >>>>>>>>>> to be sure. If the committers involved can pitch in, I’d appreciate, >>>>>>>>>> else I’ll work on this for a bit right now and continue with this >>>>>>>>>> tomorrow morning. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - SOLR-10477 (Ab) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is a partial back-port of relevant improvements from master to >>>>>>>>> 6x, so there are no strictly corresponding commits on 7x/master. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - SOLR-10631: Metric reporters leak on 6x. (Ab) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This one has been fixed as part of other related issues in branches >>>>>>>>> 7.x / master, so it only required a specific fix for 6x. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - SOLR-10000 (Ab) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This has been committed first to 7x, then to 6x and it’s present in >>>>>>>>> branch_6_6. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andrzej Bialecki >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Uwe Schindler >>>>>>>>> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen >>>>>>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Achterdiek+19,+28357+Bremen&entry=gmail&source=g> >>>>>>>>> https://www.thetaphi.de <https://www.thetaphi.de/> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker >> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >> <http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley> | Book: >> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com >> <http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com/> >
