What should be done to get 8.0 version added to Docker Hub [0]? Would this need to be done by Martijn Koster at Lucidworks? If so, can someone please request him to take a look? Or is this something that even we (@ Apache) can do too?
[0] - https://hub.docker.com/_/solr/ On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 9:44 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
