We discussed this before and agreed that could be removed. I made a patch to
remove it but my editor always removes trailing whitespace and Jan doesn’t want
that for some reason and I haven’t had time to go back to it. See
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9434.
On Oct 9, 2020, 11:09 AM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <[email protected]>, wrote:
> 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]
>
