IIUC, reference_impl is the branch where the changes are stable. *_dev is
the branch where active development is going on. Once changes are baked in
there, they are promoted to reference_impl. We want to release from
reference_impl.

On Mon, 5 Oct, 2020, 6:16 pm Erick Erickson, <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Uwe:
>
> I think it’s reference_impl_dev...
>
> > On Oct 4, 2020, at 6:00 PM, Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I enabled the „gradlew check” runs on ASF Jenkins and Policeman Jenkins
> (Linux, Windows, MacOS).
> >
> > I used branch (“reference_impl”). Is this correct, because it’s about a
> month old?
> > There’s also a much newer “reference_impl_dev” branch. Which one is
> correct?
> >
> > I will go sleeping now, sorry for failure mails during the night. Builds
> seem to fail, but it’s too late to do anything against it.
> >
> > Uwe
> >
> > -----
> > Uwe Schindler
> > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
> > https://www.thetaphi.de
> > eMail: [email protected]
> >
> > From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 6:32 AM
> > To: Uwe Schindler <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Lucene Dev <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: Solr Alpha (EA) release of Reference Branch
> >
> > Yes Uwe, it is ready for Jenkins testing. The Solr tests should run very
> fast now.
> >
> > As for naming, our package manager in Solr will break if we don't
> specify a major and a minor version. There's a concept of version
> constraints for packages that need to compare against Solr version. I think
> release process will also be much simpler if we have a major and minor
> version. We have done a similar release in the past, 4.0.0-beta iirc.
> >
> > Why I favour 10.0-alpha or something like that is because users would
> clearly know it is something that isn't coming right now (and hence very
> early access), and it is logically a major version change (that comes after
> 8x). With calling it 10x instead of 9x, we have the scope of abandoning the
> effort as a whole if the early access releases have some serious problem or
> we decide to take some other release strategy later.
> >
> > If the 10.0-alpha succeeds, we can always fold the changes back into a
> 9.1 or go from 9.0 straight to 10.0, depending on what we decide later.
> Alternatively, if the release looks good and 9.0 hasn't released yet, we
> can fold those changes back to master, and either (a) release everything
> normally as 9.0, or (b) call master as 10x and release from there (going
> from 8.8 to 10.0 directly, skipping 9x altogether).
> >
> > Tldr, we shall have complete flexibility to go in any direction we want
> to.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > On Sun, 4 Oct, 2020, 2:31 am Uwe Schindler, <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Is the branch ready for Jenkins testing?
> >>
> >> If yes and "gradlew check" works, I really would like to set it up.
> >>
> >> Uwe
> >>
> >> Am October 3, 2020 7:42:22 PM UTC schrieb Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> [email protected]>:
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> --
> >> Uwe Schindler
> >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
> >> https://www.thetaphi.de
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>

Reply via email to