On a different note, I realized 2 days back that the solr:latest on docker hub points to 7.7.1. What do we need to do to get 8.0 docker image on docker hub?
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 6:57 PM Cassandra Targett <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have a number of changes in a local branch for the 8.0 Ref Guide page > “Major Changes in Solr 8” about HTTP/2 which might help. I hadn’t intended to > push my branch, but I could if it helps. I also have a bunch of unfinished > content I started about nested documents, but tearing apart the CHANGES.txt > to figure out what is new and how that impacts upgrades is incredibly painful > and time-consuming, and I don’t have a ton of time these days. This is why > the 8.0 Ref Guide isn’t out yet. > > Tangentially, I feel like we need to work something else out about Wiki > release notes (and, remember, wiki.apache.org is going away really soon now) > and the Ref Guide. It’s odd to me that one person decides how to present > what’s new in the Wiki release notes, and someone else decides how to present > a whole other set of content about the same set of features for the Ref > Guide. Usually I skip the what’s new part for the minor releases, but for > major ones, there needs to be a comprehensive “here’s what’s new and what’s > changed” - we’ve done it for 5->6 and 6->7, it’s part of the major version > process now. > > Anyway, let me know if you want to see what I have so far, and I’ll try to > find some time to push it or make a patch. > On Apr 30, 2019, 8:00 AM -0500, David Smiley <[email protected]>, > wrote: > > Hi Dat, > > I plan to update Solr's release notes for 8.0 retroactively. > https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote80 has more info on nested docs; I > wrote this well over a month ago. Can you please enhance the part on HTTP2 > to be more informative? For example... what *benefit* does HTTP2 bring to > internode communication? I know you benchmarked things. Maybe mention the > road to full HTTP2 continues into 8.x? > > I'm sending this to the dev list so really anyone else can help like list > other major features... though I think maybe it's just these two. > > ~ David Smiley > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: David Smiley <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 9:34 AM > Subject: Re: Lucene/Solr 8.0 > To: Solr/Lucene Dev <[email protected]> > > > The Solr highlights section of the announcement is severely incomplete as to > appear embarrassing. > In the absence of time/effort to fix it should have simply been omitted; the > CHANGES.txt has details. > That would not have been embarrassing. > Maybe next time we could have a call to action about the release highlights > that coincides with the creation of the release branch; > that is a juncture in which the features are frozen and there's plenty of > time to update. > Last night I saw the call to action but it was woefully too late for me to > help. > > ~ David Smiley > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:02 AM Adrien Grand <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I organized existing items of the Lucene release notes into sections >> and added a new item about FeatureField, >> LongPoint#newDistanceFeatureQuery and >> LatLonPoint#newDistanceFeatureQuery. >> >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 5:54 PM Alan Woodward <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Jim and I have created wiki pages for the 8.0 release highlights here: >> > https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote80 >> > https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseNote80 >> > >> > Feel free to edit and improve them - the Solr one in particular could do >> > with some beefing up. >> > >> > >> > On 20 Feb 2019, at 11:37, Noble Paul <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I'm committing them, >> > Thanks Ishan >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 8:38 PM Alan Woodward <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Awesome, thank you Ishan! >> > >> > On 20 Feb 2019, at 09:15, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > Would anyone like to volunteer to be release manager for 7.7.1? >> > >> > I can volunteer for 7.7.1. I'll start as soon as both these issues are >> > committed. >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 9:18 PM Alan Woodward <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > We have two Solr issues that are serious enough to warrant a 7.7.1 >> > release: SOLR-13248 and SOLR-13255. Given our backwards-compatibility >> > guarantees, we should do this release before we restart the 8.0.0 process. >> > >> > Would anyone like to volunteer to be release manager for 7.7.1? Ideally >> > we would get this done quickly so that I can continue releasing 8.0.0. >> > >> > On 14 Feb 2019, at 20:37, Mikhail Khludnev <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:08 PM Mikhail Khludnev <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Thank you, Alan. Give me an hour. >> > >> > чт, 14 февр. 2019 г., 20:59 Alan Woodward [email protected]: >> > >> > >> > OK, let’s do an RC2. When do you think you can have a fix in? >> > >> > Mikhail, will you be able to get your fix in soon as well? >> > >> > >> > >> > Nope. Don't wait for SOLR-13126, it turns to be more complicated. >> > >> > >> > >> > On 14 Feb 2019, at 14:34, Shalin Shekhar Mangar <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hi Alan, >> > >> > There is a work-around which is to change the default to using legacy >> > assignment using cluster properties. But I don't like the idea of >> > releasing something that we know is broken and asking everyone to set a >> > cluster property to workaround it. I'd rather just rollback the commits >> > that caused the problem and then release 8.0 >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:11 PM Alan Woodward <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Hi Shalin, >> > >> > I'm not familiar with this bit of code - is there a workaround available? >> > ie a way of using a different replica placement strategy when creating a >> > collection? If there is, I'd be tempted to continue with the vote as is >> > and then do an immediate 8.0.1 release once you have things fixed, >> > particularly if we’re going to require a 7.7.1 as well. >> > >> > On 14 Feb 2019, at 12:45, Shalin Shekhar Mangar <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hi Alan, >> > >> > I opened SOLR-13248 a few minutes ago. It is a bad bug that should be a >> > blocker for 8.0 and might require a bug fix 7.7.1 release as well. In the >> > interest of time, I propose rolling back SOLR-12739 which caused these >> > issues. We can re-introduce it with proper fixes for the related issues in >> > 8.1. >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:45 PM Alan Woodward <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > The release candidate has already been built and voting is in progress, so >> > it’s missed the boat unless there’s a respin. It does look like a nasty >> > bug though, so if you have a fix then feel free too commit it to the 8_0 >> > branch in case we do an 8.0.1 release. >> > >> > On 14 Feb 2019, at 09:35, Mikhail Khludnev <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Does https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13126 fit for 8_0 ? >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:00 AM Alan Woodward <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > I have no problem with bug-fixes and ref-guide changes on the 8_0 branch. >> > >> > On 13 Feb 2019, at 22:25, Cassandra Targett <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I’ll let Alan reply definitively, but IMO if branch_8_0 is closed even to >> > Ref Guide-only commits, we’re not going to have an 8.0 Ref Guide at all >> > since there’s a lot of editing yet to be done for it. >> > >> > Cassandra >> > On Feb 13, 2019, 4:20 PM -0600, David Smiley <[email protected]>, >> > wrote: >> > >> > I've been shepherding https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13129 >> > which only touches the Solr Ref Guide. Could the Ref Guide for 8.0 >> > include this even if it's committed after the 8.0 for the code? I could >> > avoid touching CHANGES.txt if that helps (it'd be of dubious value to >> > users browsing the change list any way). >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:43 AM Alan Woodward <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > Thanks for letting me know Jason. Your commit will have missed the cut, >> > yes, but I don’t think it matters that much. It will get picked up in a >> > respin or in any subsequent bug-fix release, and if RC1 passes the vote >> > then we can just alter CHANGES.txt >> > >> > >> > On 13 Feb 2019, at 16:27, Jason Gerlowski <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Hey Alan, >> > >> > I just committed a minor inconsequential bugfix >> > (1b6c8fa95ba8c5b0646f599132c8ffd20c697e72) to branch_8_0. I didn't >> > realize I was cutting it so close to your work on cutting RC1, but >> > from commits I see you made this morning preparing for the RC I >> > suspect I cut things _very_ close and just missed it. >> > >> > Hopefully my ill-timed commit to branch_8_0 doesn't create any >> > problems for you on the release end. I'm happy to do whatever's >> > easiest for you regarding that commit. It'd be nice to have it >> > included in 8.0, but it's not imperative by any means if I've already >> > missed the first RC, or it's easier for you to omit from potential >> > subsequent RCs. Let me know if there's anything you'd like me to do >> > (revert it, etc.). At a minimum if it doesn't make 8.0 I'll need to >> > go back and update CHANGES.txt I think. >> > >> > Sorry again for the potential complication. I hate to be "that guy". >> > Thanks for stepping up and handling the release. >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Jason >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:52 AM jim ferenczi <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > Thanks for fixing Cassandra and sorry for the noise. I did this too many >> > times in the past so I just mechanically changed the redirect without >> > thinking of when or if the ref guide was also released. >> > I'll be more careful next time ;). >> > >> > On another note, now that 7.7 is out and that we're preparing the release >> > for 8.0 what do you think of removing/nuking the 7x branch. This was >> > already discussed some time ago >> > https://markmail.org/message/xl7vypkylhmeefhh but I don't think that we >> > reached a consensus and we have maybe new options with the move to gitbox. >> > One option discussed in the thread was to remove all files and add a >> > README that says that this branch is dead. I don't know if it's possible >> > but we could also make the branch protected in gitbox in order to avoid >> > new commits. What do you think ? Should we keep this branch and just >> > consider new commits as useless or should we try to "clean up" all Nx >> > branches that are not active anymore (5x, 6x, 7x) ? >> > >> > Jim >> > >> > Le mar. 12 févr. 2019 à 20:25, Cassandra Targett <[email protected]> a >> > écrit : >> > >> > >> > I’d like to remind RMs that when finishing up a release, we can’t just do >> > a blanket find/replace in .htaccess to update the version. If we’re not >> > going to coordinate binary releases with Ref Guide releases, we need to be >> > careful not to change the redirects unless that version’s Ref Guide >> > release is also imminent. >> > >> > This is noted in the ReleaseToDo >> > (https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo#Update_redirect_to_latest_Javadoc), >> > but I’ve seen it occur a little too soon for the past few releases…in >> > those cases, the Ref Guide release was pretty close so it didn’t matter >> > that much. >> > >> > In this case, though, I haven’t had time to do a 7.7 Ref Guide so it >> > doesn’t exist yet (if it will ever be, I’m pretty swamped so someone else >> > needs to maybe take care of it), but all non-version specific Ref Guide >> > link is now being routed to a non-existent 7.7 path. It’s easy to fix, but >> > we have an easy way to avoid routing people to dead links. >> > >> > Cassandra >> > On Feb 8, 2019, 3:58 AM -0600, Alan Woodward <[email protected]>, wrote: >> > >> > Once 7.7 is out the door, we should get on with releasing 8.0. I >> > volunteer to be the manager for this round. My current plan is to build a >> > release candidate early next week, as soon as the 7.7 release has been >> > announced. >> > >> > On 8 Feb 2019, at 09:07, Alan Woodward <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > It is a shame, I agree, but some of this stuff has been deprecated since >> > 3.6, so another release cycle won’t hurt :). We should prioritise cleaning >> > this stuff up once 8.0 is out of the door though. >> > >> > On 8 Feb 2019, at 07:27, David Smiley <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Okay. I suppose the issue is that it's simply too late in the 8.0 cycle >> > to remove things that have been deprecated in previous releases? >> > solr.LatLonType is one example. It's a shame to keep around such things >> > further. >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:03 AM Alan Woodward <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Not quite - the plan is to remove things entirely in 9.0, but we may need >> > to back port some extra deprecations to 8x. We don’t necessarily need >> > them in 8.0 though - we can deprecate in 8.1 and remove in 9 without any >> > problems. I opened the issues to ensure that we didn’t keep carrying >> > deprecated code through any further releases. >> > >> > >> > On 7 Feb 2019, at 06:43, David Smiley <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I want to ensure people are aware of two issues "Remove deprecated code in >> > master" that Alan filed: >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13138 >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8638 >> > There's a "master-deprecations" branch as well. >> > >> > Although both issues are marked "master (9.0)", I think the intent is >> > actually 8.0 so that we are finally rid of the deprecated code? >> > >> > ~ David >> > >> > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:25 AM Kevin Risden <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > SOLR-9515 - Hadoop 3 upgrade has been merged to master, 8x, and 8.0. >> > I'm keeping any eye on the builds this weekend but all indications are >> > no issues so far. >> > >> > Kevin Risden >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:46 AM Adrien Grand <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Nick, this change seems to be causing test failures. Can you have a look? >> > >> > See eg. >> > https://builds.apache.org/job/Lucene-Solr-SmokeRelease-8.x/15/console. >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:27 AM Nicholas Knize <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Thank you Jim. LUCENE-8669 has been merged. >> > >> > - Nick >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:36 PM jim ferenczi <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > Sure Nick, I am not aware of other blockers for 7.7 so I'll start the >> > first RC when your patch is merged. >> > Kevin, this looks like a big change so I am not sure if it's a good idea >> > to rush this in for 8.0. Would it be safer to target another version in >> > order to take some time to ensure that it's not breaking anything ? I >> > guess that your concern is that a change like this should happen in a >> > major version but I wonder if it's worth the risk. I don't know this part >> > of the code and the implications of such a change so I let you decide what >> > we should do here but let's not delay the release if we realize that this >> > change requires more than a few days to be merged. >> > >> > Le mer. 30 janv. 2019 à 20:25, Nicholas Knize <[email protected]> a écrit : >> > >> > >> > Hey Jim, >> > >> > I just added https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8669 along with >> > a pretty straightforward patch. This is a critical one that I think needs >> > to be in for 7.7 and 8.0. Can I set this as a blocker? >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:07 PM >> > >> > Kevin Risden <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Jim, >> > >> > Since 7.7 needs to be released before 8.0 does that leave time to get >> > SOLR-9515 - Hadoop 3 upgrade into 8.0? I have a PR updated and it is >> > currently under review. >> > >> > Should I set the SOLR-9515 as a blocker for 8.0? I'm curious if others >> > feel this should make it into 8.0 or not. >> > >> > Kevin Risden >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:15 AM jim ferenczi <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > I had to revert the version bump for 8.0 (8.1) on branch_8x because we >> > don't handle two concurrent releases in our tests >> > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8665). >> > Since we want to release 7.7 first I created the Jenkins job for this >> > version only and will build the first candidate for this version later >> > this week if there are no objection. >> > I'll restore the version bump for 8.0 when 7.7 is out. >> > >> > >> > Le mar. 29 janv. 2019 à 14:43, jim ferenczi <[email protected]> a >> > écrit : >> > >> > >> > Hi, >> > Hearing no objection I created the branches for 8.0 and 7.7. I'll now >> > create the Jenkins tasks for these versions, Uwe can you also add them to >> > the Policeman's Jenkins job ? >> > This also means that the feature freeze phase has started for both >> > versions (7.7 and 8.0): >> > >> > No new features may be committed to the branch. >> > Documentation patches, build patches and serious bug fixes may be >> > committed to the branch. However, you should submit all patches you want >> > to commit to Jira first to give others the chance to review and possibly >> > vote against the patch. Keep in mind that it is our main intention to keep >> > the branch as stable as possible. >> > All patches that are intended for the branch should first be committed to >> > the unstable branch, merged into the stable branch, and then into the >> > current release branch. >> > Normal unstable and stable branch development may continue as usual. >> > However, if you plan to commit a big change to the unstable branch while >> > the branch feature freeze is in effect, think twice: can't the addition >> > wait a couple more days? Merges of bug fixes into the branch may become >> > more difficult. >> > Only Jira issues with Fix version "X.Y" and priority "Blocker" will delay >> > a release candidate build. >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Jim >> > >> > >> > Le lun. 28 janv. 2019 à 13:54, Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]> >> > a écrit : >> > >> > >> > sure, thanks Jim! >> > >> > Tommaso >> > >> > Il giorno lun 28 gen 2019 alle ore 10:35 jim ferenczi >> > <[email protected]> ha scritto: >> > >> > >> > Go ahead Tommaso the branch is not created yet. >> > The plan is to create the branches (7.7 and 8.0) tomorrow or wednesday >> > and to announce the feature freeze the same day. >> > For blocker issues that are still open this leaves another week to work on >> > a patch and we can update the status at the end of the week in order to >> > decide if we can start the first build candidate >> > early next week. Would that work for you ? >> > >> > Le lun. 28 janv. 2019 à 10:19, Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]> >> > a écrit : >> > >> > >> > I'd like to backport https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8659 >> > (upgrade to OpenNLP 1.9.1) to 8x branch, if there's still time. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Tommaso >> > >> > Il giorno lun 28 gen 2019 alle ore 07:59 Adrien Grand >> > <[email protected]> ha scritto: >> > >> > >> > Hi Noble, >> > >> > No it hasn't created yet. >> > >> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 3:55 AM Noble Paul <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Is the branch already cut for 8.0? which is it? >> > >> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 4:03 AM David Smiley <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > I finally have a patch up for >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12768 (already marked as 8.0 >> > blocker) that I feel pretty good about. This provides a key part of the >> > nested document support. >> > I will work on some documentation for it this week -- SOLR-13129 >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:07 PM Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > I don't think it is critical for this to be a blocker for 8.0. If it gets >> > fixed in 8.0.1 that's ok too, given this is an ooold bug. >> > I think we should simply remove the buffering feature in the UI and >> > replace it with an error message popup or something. >> > I'll try to take a look next week. >> > >> > -- >> > Jan Høydahl, search solution architect >> > Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com >> > >> > 25. jan. 2019 kl. 20:39 skrev Tomás Fernández Löbbe >> > <[email protected]>: >> > >> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Adrien Grand <[email protected]> >> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 5:33 PM >> > To: Lucene Dev <[email protected]> >> > 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 <[email protected]> >> > 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 <[email protected]> >> > >> > 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 <[email protected]> >> > >> > 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] >> > >> > From: Alan Woodward <[email protected]> >> > Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 11:30 AM >> > To: [email protected] >> > 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 <[email protected]> >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > January. >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 2:04 AM S G <[email protected]> >> > >> > 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > +1 >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:38 AM Alan Woodward >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> > >> > 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> > >> > 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> a écrit : >> > >> > >> > +1 to a 7.6 —lots of stuff in there >> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:47 PM Nicholas Knize >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 -- >> > >> > &g >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Sincerely yours >> > Mikhail Khludnev >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > ----------------------------------------------------- >> > Noble Paul >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Adrien >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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]
