I am hoping to take a look at upgrading the Hadoop 2.x dependencies to 3.x this weekend/upcoming week before the feature freeze. I know I am a bit late to starting this but would be great to not be stuck on Hadoop 2.x much longer. SOLR-9515 was filed by Mark Miller a while ago for this. There are quite a few Solr JIRAs about issues with JDK9+ and many of these have been fixed in the Hadoop 3.1/3.2 timeframe. I'm hoping to sit down and figure out the details. Mark Miller had previously put up a patch and Hrishikesh Gadre had created JIRAs (SOLR-9761) for cleaning up some of the security pieces.
I am first looking to make sure Hadoop 3.x works on JDK8 and then can figure out how many of the JDK9+ JIRAs have been resolved. Kevin Risden On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 2:40 PM Tomás Fernández Löbbe <tomasflo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think the UI is an important Solr feature. As long as there is a reasonable > time horizon for the issue being resolved I'm +1 on making it a blocker. I'm > not familiar enough with the UI code to help either unfortunately. > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:24 AM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It looks like someone tried to make it a blocker once before... And it's >> actually a duplicate of an earlier issue >> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9818). I guess its a question of >> whether or not overall quality has a bearing on the decision to release. As >> it turns out the screen shot I posted to the issue is less than half of the >> shards that eventually got created since there was an outstanding queue of >> requests still processing at the time. I'm now having to delete 50 or so >> cores, which luckily are small 100 Mb initial testing cores, not the 20GB >> cores we'll be testing on in the near future. It more or less makes it >> impossible to recommend the use of the admin UI for anything other than read >> only observation of the cluster. Now imagine someone leaves a browser window >> open and forgets about it rather than browsing away or closing the window, >> not knowing that it's silently pumping out requests after showing an >> error... would completely hose a node, and until they tracked down the >> source of the requests, (hope he didn't go home) it would be impossible to >> resolve... >> >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 1:25 PM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Releasing a new major is very challenging on its own, I'd rather not >>> call it a blocker and delay the release for it since this isn't a new >>> regression in 8.0: it looks like a problem that has affected Solr >>> since at least 6.3? I'm not familiar with the UI code at all, but >>> maybe this is something that could get fixed before we build a RC? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 6:06 PM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > I'd like to suggest that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10211 >>> > be promoted to block 8.0. I just got burned by it a second time. >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:05 PM Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Cool, >>> >> >>> >> I am working on giving my best release time guess as possible on the >>> >> FOSDEM conference! >>> >> >>> >> Uwe >>> >> >>> >> ----- >>> >> Uwe Schindler >>> >> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen >>> >> http://www.thetaphi.de >>> >> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de >>> >> >>> >> > -----Original Message----- >>> >> > From: Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> >>> >> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 5:33 PM >>> >> > To: Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org> >>> >> > Subject: Re: Lucene/Solr 8.0 >>> >> > >>> >> > +1 to release 7.7 and 8.0 in a row starting on the week of February >>> >> > 4th. >>> >> > >>> >> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:23 PM jim ferenczi <jim.feren...@gmail.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Hi, >>> >> > > As we agreed some time ago I'd like to start on releasing 8.0. The >>> >> > > branch is >>> >> > already created so we can start the process anytime now. Unless there >>> >> > are >>> >> > objections I'd like to start the feature freeze next week in order to >>> >> > build the >>> >> > first candidate the week after. >>> >> > > We'll also need a 7.7 release but I think we can handle both with >>> >> > > Alan so >>> >> > the question now is whether we are ok to start the release process or >>> >> > if there >>> >> > are any blockers left ;). >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Le mar. 15 janv. 2019 à 11:35, Alan Woodward <romseyg...@gmail.com> >>> >> > a écrit : >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> I’ve started to work through the various deprecations on the new >>> >> > >> master >>> >> > branch. There are a lot of them, and I’m going to need some >>> >> > assistance for >>> >> > several of them, as it’s not entirely clear what to do. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> I’ll open two overarching issues in JIRA, one for lucene and one >>> >> > >> for Solr, >>> >> > with lists of the deprecations that need to be removed in each one. >>> >> > I’ll create >>> >> > a shared branch on gitbox to work against, and push the changes I’ve >>> >> > already >>> >> > done there. We can then create individual JIRA issues for any changes >>> >> > that >>> >> > are more involved than just deleting code. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> All assistance gratefully received, particularly for the Solr >>> >> > >> deprecations >>> >> > where there’s a lot of code I’m unfamiliar with. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> On 8 Jan 2019, at 09:21, Alan Woodward <romseyg...@gmail.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> I think the current plan is to do a 7.7 release at the same time as >>> >> > >> 8.0, to >>> >> > handle any last-minute deprecations etc. So let’s keep those jobs >>> >> > enabled >>> >> > for now. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> On 8 Jan 2019, at 09:10, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> Hi, >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> I will start and add the branch_8x jobs to Jenkins once I have some >>> >> > >> time >>> >> > later today. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> The question: How to proceed with branch_7x? Should we stop using it >>> >> > and release 7.6.x only (so we would use branch_7_6 only for bugfixes), >>> >> > or >>> >> > are we planning to one more Lucene/Solr 7.7? In the latter case I >>> >> > would keep >>> >> > the jenkins jobs enabled for a while. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> Uwe >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> ----- >>> >> > >> Uwe Schindler >>> >> > >> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen >>> >> > >> http://www.thetaphi.de >>> >> > >> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> From: Alan Woodward <romseyg...@gmail.com> >>> >> > >> Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 11:30 AM >>> >> > >> To: dev@lucene.apache.org >>> >> > >> Subject: Re: Lucene/Solr 8.0 >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> OK, Christmas caught up with me a bit… I’ve just created a branch >>> >> > >> for 8x >>> >> > from master, and am in the process of updating the master branch to >>> >> > version >>> >> > 9. New commits that should be included in the 8.0 release should also >>> >> > be >>> >> > back-ported to branch_8x from master. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> This is not intended as a feature freeze, as I know there are still >>> >> > >> some >>> >> > things being worked on for 8.0; however, it should let us clean up >>> >> > master by >>> >> > removing as much deprecated code as possible, and give us an idea of >>> >> > any >>> >> > replacement work that needs to be done. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> On 19 Dec 2018, at 15:13, David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> January. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 2:04 AM S G <sg.online.em...@gmail.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> It would be nice to see Solr 8 in January soon as there is an >>> >> > >> enhancement >>> >> > on nested-documents we are waiting to get our hands on. >>> >> > >> Any idea when Solr 8 would be out ? >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> Thx >>> >> > >> SG >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:34 PM David Smiley >>> >> > <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> I see 10 JIRA issues matching this filter: project in (SOLR, >>> >> > >> LUCENE) AND >>> >> > priority = Blocker and status = open and fixVersion = "master (8.0)" >>> >> > >> click here: >>> >> > >> >>> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20in%20(SOLR%2C%20LU >>> >> > CENE)%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20and%20status%20%3D%2 >>> >> > 0open%20and%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%22master%20(8.0)%22%20 >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> Thru the end of the month, I intend to work on those issues not yet >>> >> > assigned. >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 4:51 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> +1 >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:38 AM Alan Woodward >>> >> > <romseyg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > Hi all, >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > Now that 7.6 is out of the door (thanks Nick!) we should think >>> >> > >> > about >>> >> > cutting the 8.0 branch and moving master to 9.0. I’ll volunteer to >>> >> > create the >>> >> > branch this week - say Wednesday? Then we should have some time to >>> >> > clean up the master branch and uncover anything that still needs to be >>> >> > done >>> >> > on 8.0 before we start the release process next year. >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > On 22 Oct 2018, at 18:12, Cassandra Targett >>> >> > >> > <casstarg...@gmail.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > I'm a bit delayed, but +1 on the 7.6 and 8.0 plan from me too. >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 7:18 AM Erick Erickson >>> >> > <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> +1, this gives us all a chance to prioritize getting the >>> >> > >> >> blockers out >>> >> > >> >> of the way in a careful manner. >>> >> > >> >> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 7:56 AM jim ferenczi >>> >> > >> >> <jim.feren...@gmail.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > +1 too. With this new perspective we could create the branch >>> >> > >> >> > just >>> >> > after the 7.6 release and target the 8.0 release for January 2019 >>> >> > which gives >>> >> > almost 3 month to finish the blockers ? >>> >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > Le jeu. 18 oct. 2018 à 23:56, David Smiley >>> >> > <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> +1 to a 7.6 —lots of stuff in there >>> >> > >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:47 PM Nicholas Knize >>> >> > <nkn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >>> >>> >> > >> >> >>> If we're planning to postpone cutting an 8.0 branch until a >>> >> > >> >> >>> few >>> >> > weeks from now then I'd like to propose (and volunteer to RM) a 7.6 >>> >> > release >>> >> > targeted for late November or early December (following the typical 2 >>> >> > month >>> >> > release pattern). It feels like this might give a little breathing >>> >> > room for >>> >> > finishing up 8.0 blockers? And looking at the change log there appear >>> >> > to be a >>> >> > healthy list of features, bug fixes, and improvements to both Solr and >>> >> > Lucene >>> >> > that warrant a 7.6 release? Personally I wouldn't mind releasing the >>> >> > LatLonShape encoding changes in LUCENE-8521 and selective indexing work >>> >> > done in LUCENE-8496. Any objections or thoughts? >>> >> > >> >> >>> >>> >> > >> >> >>> - Nick >>> >> > >> >> >>> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >>> >> > >> >> >>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 5:32 AM Đạt Cao Mạnh >>> >> > <caomanhdat...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>> Thanks Cassandra and Jim, >>> >> > >> >> >>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>> I created a blocker issue for Solr 8.0 SOLR-12883, >>> >> > >> >> >>>> currently in >>> >> > jira/http2 branch there are a draft-unmature implementation of SPNEGO >>> >> > authentication which enough to makes the test pass, this >>> >> > implementation will >>> >> > be removed when SOLR-12883 gets resolved . Therefore I don't see any >>> >> > problem on merging jira/http2 to master branch in the next week. >>> >> > >> >> >>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 2:33 AM jim ferenczi >>> >> > <jim.feren...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>> > But if you're working with a different assumption - that >>> >> > >> >> >>>>> > just the >>> >> > existence of the branch does not stop Dat from still merging his work >>> >> > and the >>> >> > work being included in 8.0 - then I agree, waiting for him to merge >>> >> > doesn't >>> >> > need to stop the creation of the branch. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>> Yes that's my reasoning. This issue is a blocker so we >>> >> > >> >> >>>>> won't >>> >> > release without it but we can work on the branch in the meantime and >>> >> > let >>> >> > other people work on new features that are not targeted to 8. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>> Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 à 20:51, Cassandra Targett >>> >> > <casstarg...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>> OK - I was making an assumption that the timeline for the >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>> first >>> >> > 8.0 RC would be ASAP after the branch is created. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>> It's a common perception that making a branch freezes >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>> adding >>> >> > new features to the release, perhaps in an unofficial way (more of a >>> >> > courtesy >>> >> > rather than a rule). But if you're working with a different assumption >>> >> > - that >>> >> > just the existence of the branch does not stop Dat from still merging >>> >> > his work >>> >> > and the work being included in 8.0 - then I agree, waiting for him to >>> >> > merge >>> >> > doesn't need to stop the creation of the branch. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>> If, however, once the branch is there people object to Dat >>> >> > merging his work because it's "too late", then the branch shouldn't be >>> >> > created yet because we want to really try to clear that blocker for >>> >> > 8.0. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>> Cassandra >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:13 PM jim ferenczi >>> >> > <jim.feren...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>> Ok thanks for answering. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>> > - I think Solr needs a couple more weeks since the >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>> > work Dat >>> >> > is doing isn't quite done yet. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>> We can wait a few more weeks to create the branch but I >>> >> > don't think that one action (creating the branch) prevents the other >>> >> > (the >>> >> > work Dat is doing). >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>> HTTP/2 is one of the blocker for the release but it can >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>> be done >>> >> > in master and backported to the appropriate branch as any other >>> >> > feature ? >>> >> > We just need an issue with the blocker label to ensure that >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>> we don't miss it ;). Creating the branch early would >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>> also help >>> >> > in case you don't want to release all the work at once in 8.0.0. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>> Next week was just a proposal, what I meant was soon >>> >> > because we target a release in a few months. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>> Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 à 17:52, Cassandra Targett >>> >> > <casstarg...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> IMO next week is a bit too soon for the branch - I >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> think Solr >>> >> > needs a couple more weeks since the work Dat is doing isn't quite done >>> >> > yet. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> Solr needs the HTTP/2 work Dat has been doing, and he >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> told >>> >> > me yesterday he feels it is nearly ready to be merged into master. >>> >> > However, >>> >> > it does require a new release of Jetty to Solr is able to retain >>> >> > Kerberos >>> >> > authentication support (Dat has been working with that team to help >>> >> > test the >>> >> > changes Jetty needs to support Kerberos with HTTP/2). They should get >>> >> > that >>> >> > release out soon, but we are dependent on them a little bit. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> He can hopefully reply with more details on his status >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> and >>> >> > what else needs to be done. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> Once Dat merges his work, IMO we should leave it in >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> master >>> >> > for a little bit. While he has been beasting and testing with Jenkins >>> >> > as he goes >>> >> > along, I think it would be good to have all the regular master builds >>> >> > work on >>> >> > it for a little bit also. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> Of the other blockers, the only other large-ish one is >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> to fully >>> >> > remove Trie* fields, which some of us also discussed yesterday and it >>> >> > seemed we concluded that Solr isn't really ready to do that. The >>> >> > performance >>> >> > issues with single value lookups are a major obstacle. It would be >>> >> > nice if >>> >> > someone with a bit more experience with that could comment in the issue >>> >> > (SOLR-12632) and/or unmark it as a blocker. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> Cassandra >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 8:38 AM Erick Erickson >>> >> > <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> I find 9 open blockers for 8.0: >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20SOLR%20AND >>> >> > %20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20AND%20status%20%3D%20OPEN >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> As David mentioned, many of the SOlr committers are at >>> >> > Activate, which >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> ends Thursday so feedback (and work) may be a bit >>> >> > delayed. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 8:11 AM David Smiley >>> >> > <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > Hi, >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > Thanks for volunteering to do the 8.0 release Jim! >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > Many of us are at the Activate Conference in >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > Montreal. >>> >> > We had a committers meeting where we discussed some of the blockers. I >>> >> > think only a couple items were raised. I'll leave Dat to discuss the >>> >> > one on >>> >> > HTTP2. On the Solr nested docs front, I articulated one and we mostly >>> >> > came >>> >> > to a decision on how to do it. It's not "hard" just a matter of how >>> >> > to hook in >>> >> > some functionality so that it's user-friendly. I'll file an issue for >>> >> > this. >>> >> > Inexplicably I'm sheepish about marking issues "blocker" but I >>> >> > shouldn't be. >>> >> > I'll file that issue and look at another issue or two that ought to be >>> >> > blockers. >>> >> > Nothing is "hard" or tons of work that is in my sphere of work. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > On the Lucene side, I will commit >>> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7875 RE MultiFields either >>> >> > late tonight or tomorrow when I have time. It's ready to be >>> >> > committed; just >>> >> > sitting there. It's a minor thing but important to make this change >>> >> > now >>> >> > before 8.0. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > I personally plan to spend more time on the upcoming >>> >> > weeks on a few of these 8.0 things. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > ~ David >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:21 AM jim ferenczi >>> >> > <jim.feren...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Hi, >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> We still have two blockers for the Lucene 8 release: >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE- >>> >> > 7075?jql=(project%3D%22Lucene%20- >>> >> > %20Core%22%20%20OR%20project%3DSOLR)%20AND%20priority%3DBlocke >>> >> > r%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20 >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> We're planning to work on these issues in the coming >>> >> > days, are there any other blockers (not in the list) on Solr side. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Now that Lucene 7.5 is released I'd like to create a >>> >> > Lucene 8 branch soon (next week for instance ? ). There are some work >>> >> > to do >>> >> > to make sure that all tests pass, add the new version... >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> I can take care of it if there are no objections. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Creating >>> >> > the branch in advance would help to stabilize this version (people can >>> >> > continue to work on new features that are not targeted for 8.0) and >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> we can discuss the best date for the release when >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> all >>> >> > blockers are resolved. What do you think ? >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> Le mar. 18 sept. 2018 à 11:32, Adrien Grand >>> >> > <jpou...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> Đạt, is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR- >>> >> > 12639 the right issue for HTTP/2 support? Should we make it a blocker >>> >> > for >>> >> > 8.0? >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> Le lun. 3 sept. 2018 à 23:37, Adrien Grand >>> >> > <jpou...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> For the record here is the JIRA query for >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> blockers that >>> >> > Erick referred to: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR- >>> >> > 12720?jql=(project%3D%22Lucene%20- >>> >> > %20Core%22%20%20OR%20project%3DSOLR)%20AND%20priority%3DBlocke >>> >> > r%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20 >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> Le lun. 3 sept. 2018 à 10:36, jim ferenczi >>> >> > <jim.feren...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> Ok thanks Đạt and Erick. I'll follow the >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> blockers on >>> >> > Jira. Đạt do you have an issue opened for the HTTP/2 support ? >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> Le ven. 31 août 2018 à 16:40, Erick Erickson >>> >> > <erickerick...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> There's also the issue of what to do as far as >>> >> > removing Trie* support. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> I think there's a blocker JIRA. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> project = SOLR AND priority = Blocker AND >>> >> > resolution = Unresolved >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Shows 6 blockers >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 4:12 AM Đạt Cao Mạnh >>> >> > <caomanhdat...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > Hi Jim, >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > I really want to introduce the support of >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > HTTP/2 >>> >> > into Solr 8.0 (currently cooked in jira/http2 branch). The changes of >>> >> > that >>> >> > branch are less than Star Burst effort and closer to be merged into >>> >> > master >>> >> > branch. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > Thanks! >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:55 PM jim ferenczi >>> >> > <jim.feren...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> Hi all, >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> I'd like to get some feedback regarding the >>> >> > upcoming Lucene/Solr 8 release. There are still some cleanups and docs >>> >> > to >>> >> > add on the Lucene side but it seems that all blockers are resolved. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> From a Solr perspective are there any >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> important >>> >> > changes that need to be done or are we still good with the October >>> >> > target for >>> >> > the release ? Adrien mentioned the Star Burst effort some time ago, is >>> >> > it >>> >> > something that is planned for 8 ? >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> Cheers, >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> Jim >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> Le mer. 1 août 2018 à 19:02, David Smiley >>> >> > <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> Yes, that new BKD/Points based code is >>> >> > definitely something we want in 8 or 7.5 -- it's a big deal. I think >>> >> > it would also >>> >> > be awesome if we had highlighter that could use the Weight.matches() >>> >> > API -- >>> >> > again for either 7.5 or 8. I'm working on this on the >>> >> > UnifiedHighlighter front >>> >> > and Alan from other aspects. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> ~ David >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM Adrien Grand >>> >> > <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> I was hoping that we would release some >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> bits >>> >> > of this new support for geo shapes in 7.5 already. We are already very >>> >> > close >>> >> > to being able to index points, lines and polygons and query for >>> >> > intersection >>> >> > with an envelope. It would be nice to add support for other relations >>> >> > (eg. >>> >> > disjoint) and queries (eg. polygon) but the current work looks already >>> >> > useful >>> >> > to me. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> Le mer. 1 août 2018 à 17:00, Robert Muir >>> >> > <rcm...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> My only other suggestion is we may want to >>> >> > get Nick's shape stuff into >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> the sandbox module at least for 8.0 so >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> that it >>> >> > can be tested out. I >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> think it looks like that wouldn't delay >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> any >>> >> > October target though? >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 9:51 AM, Adrien >>> >> > Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > I'd like to revive this thread now that >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > these >>> >> > new optimizations for >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > collection of top docs are more usable >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > and >>> >> > enabled by default in >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > IndexSearcher >>> >> > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8060). Any >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > feedback about starting to work towards >>> >> > releasing 8.0 and targeting October >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > 2018? >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > Le jeu. 21 juin 2018 à 09:31, Adrien >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > Grand >>> >> > <jpou...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> Hi Robert, >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> I agree we need to make it more usable >>> >> > before 8.0. I would also like to >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> improve ReqOptSumScorer >>> >> > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8204) >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> to leverage impacts so that queries >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> that >>> >> > incorporate queries on feature >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> fields >>> >> > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8197) in an optional >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> clause are also fast. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> Le jeu. 21 juin 2018 à 03:06, Robert >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> Muir >>> >> > <rcm...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> How can the end user actually use the >>> >> > biggest new feature: impacts and >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> BMW? As far as I can tell, the issue >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> to >>> >> > actually implement the >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> necessary API changes >>> >> > (IndexSearcher/TopDocs/etc) is still open and >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> unresolved, although there are some >>> >> > interesting ideas on it. This >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> seems like a really big missing piece, >>> >> > without a proper API, the stuff >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> is not really usable. I also can't >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> imagine a >>> >> > situation where the API >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> could be introduced in a followup >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> minor >>> >> > release because it would be >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> too invasive. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:19 PM, >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> Adrien >>> >> > Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > Hi all, >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > I would like to start discussing >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > releasing >>> >> > Lucene/Solr 8.0. Lucene 8 >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > already >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > has some good changes around >>> >> > scoring, notably cleanups to >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > similarities[1][2][3], indexing of >>> >> > impacts[4], and an implementation of >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > Block-Max WAND[5] which, once >>> >> > combined, allow to run queries faster >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > when >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > total hit counts are not requested. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [1] >>> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8116 >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [2] >>> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8020 >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [3] >>> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8007 >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [4] >>> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4198 >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [5] >>> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8135 >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > In terms of bug fixes, there is >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > also a >>> >> > bad relevancy bug[6] which is >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > only in >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > 8.0 because it required a breaking >>> >> > change[7] to be implemented. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [6] >>> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8031 >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [7] >>> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8134 >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > As usual, doing a new major release >>> >> > will also help age out old codecs, >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > which >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > in-turn make maintenance easier: 8.0 >>> >> > will no longer need to care about >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > the >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > fact that some codecs were initially >>> >> > implemented with a random-access >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > API >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > for doc values, that pre-7.0 indices >>> >> > encoded norms differently, or that >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > pre-6.2 indices could not record an >>> >> > index sort. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > I also expect that we will come up >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > with >>> >> > ideas of things to do for 8.0 >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > as we >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > feel that the next major is getting >>> >> > closer. In terms of planning, I was >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > thinking that we could target >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > something >>> >> > like october 2018, which would >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > be >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > 12-13 months after 7.0 and 3-4 >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > months >>> >> > from now. >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > From a Solr perspective, the main >>> >> > change I'm aware of that would be >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > worth >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > releasing a new major is the Star >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > Burst >>> >> > effort. Is it something we want >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > to >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > get in for 8.0? >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > Adrien >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> >> > --------------- >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev- >>> >> > unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev- >>> >> > h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> > ---------- >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev- >>> >> > unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev- >>> >> > h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> -- >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, >>> >> > Developer, Author, Speaker >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> LinkedIn: >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >>> >> > | Book: http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> > - >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev- >>> >> > unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev- >>> >> > h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > -- >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, >>> >> > Author, Speaker >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: >>> >> > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev- >>> >> > unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev- >>> >> > h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> >>> -- >>> >> > >> >> >>> >>> >> > >> >> >>> Nicholas Knize, Ph.D., GISP >>> >> > >> >> >>> Geospatial Software Guy | Elasticsearch >>> >> > >> >> >>> Apache Lucene Committer >>> >> > >> >> >>> nkn...@apache.org >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> -- >>> >> > >> >> >> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, >>> >> > Speaker >>> >> > >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: >>> >> > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> > >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> -- >>> >> > >> Adrien >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> -- >>> >> > >> Lucene/Solr Search Committer (PMC), Developer, Author, Speaker >>> >> > >> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: >>> >> > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> -- >>> >> > >> Lucene/Solr Search Committer (PMC), Developer, Author, Speaker >>> >> > >> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: >>> >> > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > -- >>> >> > Adrien >>> >> > >>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > http://www.the111shift.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Adrien >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >> >> >> -- >> http://www.the111shift.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
