Thanks for commenting Adrien; I was hoping to get your input on this! On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 1:20 PM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le jeu. 14 janv. 2021 à 18:16, Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> a écrit : > >> >> 9.0 Release Planing >> >> - Reminder that there are issues with new minors after a major >> release (8.9 after a 9.0) - somebody to research. >> >> > The main challenge with this is backwards compatibility testing. If you > release 8.9 after 9.0, there is nothing in the release process that tests > that Lucene 9 can read 8.9 indices even though that is a guarantee we > provide. It can be tested manually (we have done it a couple times) but > this is quite painful and not as reliable as having it tested on every CI > build prior to the release, so we prefer avoiding releasing new minors > after a new major. > I'm not familiar with why the testing needs to be manual instead of automated. After having a RC of 8.9, couldn't we add the back-compat indices to branch_9x and check that 9.0 is happy with them (running applicable automated tests) as a precondition for releasing 8.9? Regardless, you say we've done it before, and we can do it again. I think it's likely it'll happen. > This is mostly a problem for Lucene so once Lucene and Solr have distinct > release cycles, Solr could potentially do this, e.g. release Solr 9.9 after > 10.0 is out (as long as Solr 9.9 keeps depending on the same Lucene version > as Solr 9.8). > Right; understood.
