There are also deprecations to remove: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8638
~ David Smiley Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 2:43 PM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote: > Looks like just LUCENE-9334 remains? > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:18 PM Julie Tibshirani <juliet...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hello everyone! I will pick up LUCENE-9908. > > > > > > I had marked LUCENE-9583 as a blocker but I'm on board with removing its > blocker status given we can make changes later. I hope to come back to the > issue soon with some ideas. > > > > > > Julie > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:42 PM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I agree that we can remove the blocker status from LUCENE-9583 and take > advantage of the fact that these new APIs are experimental to improve > things later. > >> > >> For the renaming issue, maybe we could just make vectors plural for now > for consistency and revisit other options later. > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:21 PM Michael Sokolov <msoko...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks Adrien; I plan to tackle LUCENE-9905. > >>> > >>> I don't have ideas about how to move forward on LUCENE-9583; I spent > >>> significant amount of time trying various permutations on that API, > >>> and what we have was the best compromise I could find at the time, so > >>> I'm not sure I agree it's a Blocker, yet I'm open to improvements. > >>> Maybe Julie will propose something? > >>> > >>> There is also a vector-related renaming issue Tomoko had opened, which > >>> I thought was marked Blocker, but I guess no longer is. Previously I > >>> had hoped to get some strong consensus, but that proved challenging. > >>> Given that, I'm OK leaving things as-is, marking these apis > >>> @experimental and potentially revisiting naming issues later, eg once > >>> we have a second vector ANN implementation. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:07 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Hi Mike, > >>> > > >>> > Here's what I know about the remaining blockers: > >>> > > >>> > LUCENE-9908 - Move VectorValues#search to VectorReader and LeafReader > >>> > This was discussed on the mailing list and it looks like there was > agreement on making that change. If someone has cycles and can take it, > please go ahead, otherwise I'll try to allocate some time to it. I'm > expecting this change to be rather straightforward. > >>> > > >>> > LUCENE-9905 - Revise approach to specifying NN algorithm > >>> > This is a change to how we've been thinking about configuring the > ANN algorithm. I don't know if someone plans to work on it. > >>> > > >>> > LUCENE-9583 - How should we expose VectorValues.RandomAccess > >>> > We'd like to get rid of this sub interface, but I'm not the best > person to comment on how much work this needs. Maybe Mike S or Julie can > give more info. > >>> > > >>> > LUCENE-9334 - Require consistency between data-structures on a > per-field basis > >>> > Mayya has been working on this one and it's very close. > >>> > > >>> > LUCENE-9047 - Directory APIs should be little endian > >>> > Ignacio and Julie have been working on this one and it is close as > well. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:59 PM Mike Drob <md...@mdrob.com> wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Michael, did you get a chance to mark the issues you were thinking > of as blockers? > >>> >> > >>> >> Adrien, I see that the remaining open blockers look mostly like > your open issues. Two of them have recent activity, but LUCENE-9047 would > need to be brought back to the lucene repo. Is this an accurate view of the > state of things? > >>> >> > >>> >> Now that I'm done with 8.8.2, I would love to see how we can > continue to make headway on 9.0! > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 3:25 PM Michael Sokolov <msoko...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> There has been some discussion around a few code visibility and > naming > >>> >>> issues related to "VectorFormat" as it is called today. I'd like to > >>> >>> get that sorted out before 9.0 - I'll hunt up the ticket(s) and > mark > >>> >>> as blockers > >>> >>> > >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 11:02 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > Hello Jan, > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > The list of blockers should be mostly up-to-date: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9661?jql=project%3D%22Lucene%20-%20Core%22%20and%20priority%3DBlocker%20and%20fixVersion%3D%22main%20(9.0)%22 > . > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 7:21 PM Jan Høydahl < > jan....@cominvent.com> wrote: > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> Hi, > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> Where are we at with the Lucene 9.0 release planning? > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> The git split is largely done. Not sure about the build. > >>> >>> >> Let's update the umbrella issue > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9375 for known remaining > cleanup tasks. > >>> >>> >> The one on that list is releaseWizard, but as Adrien says there > are also other scripts that need updating. > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> Jan > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> 13. jan. 2021 kl. 15:10 skrev Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com>: > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> +1 to start planning 9.0. > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> Since you mentioned the Gradle build, I believe that we still > need to migrate some of the release tooling from Ant to Gradle, e.g. > dev-tools/scripts/addBackcompatIndexes.py. These scripts are not easy to > test without actually doing a release so the 9.0 RM might have some > debugging to do. > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 7:17 PM Michael Sokolov < > msoko...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> Hi everyone, as we head into a new year full of optimism, is > it time > >>> >>> >>> to start discussing the next major release? We released 8.0 on > Jun 18, > >>> >>> >>> 2019, over 18 months ago. Since then we've switched to a > gradle-based > >>> >>> >>> build. We have added vector-valued fields and an HNSW neighbor > search > >>> >>> >>> algorithm for them. At the same time Solr has been getting a > major > >>> >>> >>> overhaul which should justify a release, I think? IIRC there > was talk > >>> >>> >>> of making 9.0 be the first release of Solr as its own TLP. Is > it time > >>> >>> >>> to start planning for that now? > >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> -Mike > >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> >>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >>> >>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> -- > >>> >>> >> Adrien > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > -- > >>> >>> > Adrien > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >>> >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Adrien > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Adrien > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
