Small correction: I see now some pages for 8.4 and 8.6 in a different section of the wiki tree. But the overall point still stands I think - this hasn't been done consistently and it doesn't seem like that's caused any problems (as the pages are all stubs anyways).
On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 12:05 PM Jason Gerlowski <[email protected]> wrote: > > The traditional (non-docker) part of the release should now be wrapped > up. Thanks everyone for the help and answering my questions here and > in Slack. One final question: > > The final releaseWizard.py step instructs: > > "The Solr WIKI has a page for every version which is often linked to > from WIKI pages to indicate differences between versions, example: > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solr4.3. Do the following: Update the page > for the released version with release date and link to release > statement. Create a new placeholder page for the "next" version, if it > does not exist" > > But looking at our wiki, the latest of these pages is 8.2 > (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/Solr8.2). I've > created the pages as instructed for now. But if we're not following > this step regularly and it hasn't caused any issues maybe we should > remove it from the release process altogether? > > Jason > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 5:16 PM David Smiley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The way GitHub works for contributors is that you are expected to fork a > > repo and then push to your fork. At that point when you go to the PR area, > > you'll see a convenient yellow dialog to create a PR based on your pushed > > branch. > > > > ~ David Smiley > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 10:20 AM Chris Hostetter <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> FWIW: I followed the docs to update the Dockerfiles + TAGS for 8.6.3, and > >> run tests; but since it's in a distinct github repo I don't think i can > >> push to it? > >> > >> so i creaed a GH issue w/patch... > >> > >> https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/issues/349 > >> > >> > >> > >> : Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:33:15 -0400 > >> : From: Houston Putman <[email protected]> > >> : Reply-To: [email protected] > >> : To: Solr/Lucene Dev <[email protected]> > >> : Subject: Re: 8.6.3 Release > >> : > >> : That is correct. 8.x docker builds have not been affected in any way. > >> : > >> : On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:30 AM Cassandra Targett <[email protected]> > >> : wrote: > >> : > >> : > I wanted to ask now that the 8.6.3 vote is underway - for the > >> docker-solr > >> : > image, are the update instructions in the docker-solr repo still the > >> same > >> : > for 8.x even though the build process has been moved to the main > >> project > >> : > for 9.0? Meaning, to release the 8.6.3 image there’s no change from > >> before, > >> : > right? > >> : > > >> : > I’m asking specifically about these instructions: > >> : > > >> : > https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/blob/master/update.md > >> : > On Oct 1, 2020, 9:28 AM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <[email protected]>, > >> : > wrote: > >> : > > >> : > I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can > >> : > someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a > >> : > chance? Would appreciate the review. > >> : > > >> : > 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this > >> : > bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the > >> : > Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene > >> : > level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to > >> : > indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular > >> : > attention to, if someone can check my wording there. > >> : > > >> : > [1] > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863 > >> : > [2] > >> : > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863 > >> : > > >> : > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski > >> <[email protected]> > >> : > wrote: > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was > >> : > SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended > >> : > up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there > >> : > suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but > >> : > otherwise leave it as-is. > >> : > > >> : > So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process. > >> : > Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon. > >> : > > >> : > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett > >> <[email protected]> > >> : > wrote: > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now ( > >> : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it > >> : > seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make > >> a > >> : > Jetty upgrade less compelling to try. > >> : > > >> : > Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting > >> : > for before starting the RC? > >> : > On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski > >> <[email protected]>, > >> : > wrote: > >> : > > >> : > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to > >> : > 8.7 when it’e released? > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > The same things that always stop users from going directly to the > >> : > latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release > >> : > features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking > >> : > changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g. > >> : > SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled > >> : > in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want > >> : > to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term). > >> : > > >> : > I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above > >> : > the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end - > >> : > but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as > >> : > we'd expect/like. > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson > >> <[email protected]> > >> : > wrote: > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a > >> : > point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the > >> : > dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use > >> : > 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? > >> Would it > >> : > make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door > >> rather > >> : > than backport? > >> : > > >> : > FWIW, > >> : > Erick > >> : > > >> : > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <[email protected]> > >> : > wrote: > >> : > > >> : > Hey all, > >> : > > >> : > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and > >> : > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are > >> : > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug > >> : > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered. > >> : > > >> : > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850, > >> : > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick > >> : > work on SOLR-14768!) > >> : > > >> : > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in > >> : > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix > >> : > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly > >> : > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the > >> : > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that > >> : > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts? > >> : > > >> : > Best, > >> : > > >> : > Jason > >> : > > >> : > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman > >> <[email protected]> > >> : > wrote: > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard. > >> : > > >> : > After checking, I think this fits the bill: > >> : > > >> : > > >> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435 > >> : > > >> : > - Houston > >> : > > >> : > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an > >> individual > >> : > change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, > >> branch_8x, > >> : > branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other > >> two. In > >> : > the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the > >> : > other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to > >> : > happen. > >> : > > >> : > ~ David Smiley > >> : > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > >> : > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <[email protected]> wrote: > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > do the 8.6.3 release. > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release. > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <[email protected]> > >> : > wrote: > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible. > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > others mentioned above. > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really > >> need to > >> : > wait one week? > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land. > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > Best, > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > Jason > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <[email protected]> > >> : > wrote: > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the > >> : > back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases > >> and it > >> : > gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page. > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is > >> : > released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier > >> for the > >> : > RMs and community. > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed > >> : > SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I > >> : > introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take > >> over. > >> : > It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression. > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > ~ David Smiley > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski > >> <[email protected]> > >> : > wrote: > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > Hi all, > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > of the bigger changes in 8.7 > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out? > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > Best, > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > Jason > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > -- > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > Anshum Gupta > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > -- > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > Regards, > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > Atri > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > Apache Concerted > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > 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] > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> : > 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] > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> : > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> : > > >> : > > >> : > >> > >> -Hoss > >> http://www.lucidworks.com/ > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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]
