I agree with Ilan, let’s call it something else. “super special the future of Solr” maybe ;) “Marks baby”. “batshit crazy better Solr”.
What I’d like to avoid is confusion about where to fix things. Say I’m working on an issue. Should I fix it in this impl then backport to 9.0 and 8x? Do like we do now (fix on 9.0 backport to 8x as indicated) then “forward port” to the reference impl? Ignore the reference impl other than testing? Questions: - What’s your sense of how much effort changing _functionality_ on master/8x and porting it to the EA is? I’m sure “It Depends(tm)”, I’m more interested in whether you expect most stuff ports pretty easily or very little stuff to port easily? BTW, how many warnings are there ;) - The above notwithstanding, does it become futile to chase down the intermittent failures we see on master/8x? One of the major thrusts of the EA is things like race conditions and the like. If many/most such errors just disappear in EA, I have little incentive to fix them in master/8x. Under any circumstances, I suspect that most fixes like this would be totally different between the two. That’s a huge positive BTW…. - Does it make sense to cut 9.0 coincidentally with the EA being adopted as the right future direction? In that case, 9x may be short-lived, more of a placeholder that we deprecate methods, backport new changes from EA etc, but don’t necessarily expend much effort to backport changes from 10x that don’t backport easily. - Has Lucene changed much (or at all) in the EA? I’m guessing not. Maybe not even touched… Thanks, Erick > On Oct 3, 2020, at 4:27 PM, Ilan Ginzburg <ilans...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Ishan for the initiative! > I think that’s a good idea if it allows testing that branch, assuming some > are ready to invest what it takes and run this in production (maybe not with > user facing prod traffic?). > > I do not think naming it Solr 10 is a good idea though, as it is likely very > different from what will end up being in Solr 10 (and even from what will be > in Solr 9. > > I do hope we manage to port to master all these improvements! > > Ilan > > On Sat 3 Oct 2020 at 21:42, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Hi Devs, > > As you might be aware, the reference_impl branch has a lot of improvements > that we want to see in Solr master. However, it is currently a large > deviation from master and hence the stability and reliability (though > improved in certain aspects) remains to be tested in real production > environments before we gain confidence in bringing those changes to master. > > I propose that we do a one off preview release from that branch, say Solr 10 > alpha (early access) or any other name that someone suggests, so that users > could try it out and report regressions or improvements etc. > > I volunteer to be the RM and planning to start the process around 1 > December-15 December timeframe. Until then, we can tighten the loose ends on > the branch and plan for such a release. > > Is there any thoughts, concerns, questions? > > Regards, > Ishan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
