Hi, This test also fails on Jenkins all the time. In all branches and on all platforms. All the time, it's definitely a regression.
Uwe Am 20. September 2021 19:13:56 UTC schrieb Timothy Potter <[email protected]>: >Started building the RC1 again today and the smoke tester failed. The >culprit was: org.apache.solr.search.TestFiltering.testRandomFiltering > >Re-ran that test from the RC checkout and it failed again: > > [junit4] 2> 5490 ERROR >(TEST-TestFiltering.testRandomFiltering-seed#[9A85A1D74D8AACF9]) [ >] o.a.s.SolrTestCaseJ4 REQUEST FAILED: >facet.query=*:*&facet.query={!key%3DmultiSelect+ex%3Dt}*:*&facet.query={!key%3DfacetQuery+cache%3Dfalse}+val_i:2+val_i:4&q={!+cost%3D7+tag%3Dt}-_query_:"{!frange+v%3Dval_i+l%3D2+u%3D5}"&facet=true&wt=xml > [junit4] 2> 5491 INFO >(TEST-TestFiltering.testRandomFiltering-seed#[9A85A1D74D8AACF9]) [ >] o.a.s.SolrTestCaseJ4 ###Ending testRandomFiltering > [junit4] 2> NOTE: reproduce with: ant test >-Dtestcase=TestFiltering -Dtests.method=testRandomFiltering >-Dtests.seed=9A85A1D74D8AACF9 -Dtests.slow=true -Dtests.badapples=true >-Dtests.locale=mgh -Dtests.timezone=Iceland -Dtests.asserts=true >-Dtests.file.encoding=US-ASCII > [junit4] FAILURE 0.82s | TestFiltering.testRandomFiltering <<< > [junit4] > Throwable #1: java.lang.AssertionError: should have unwrapped > [junit4] > at >__randomizedtesting.SeedInfo.seed([9A85A1D74D8AACF9:85E60212A8ADECF0]:0) > [junit4] > at >org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher.getAndCacheDocSet(SolrIndexSearcher.java:862) > [junit4] > at >org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher.getDocSet(SolrIndexSearcher.java:824) > [junit4] > at >org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher.getDocListC(SolrIndexSearcher.java:1367) > [junit4] > at >org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher.search(SolrIndexSearcher.java:596) > [junit4] > at >org.apache.solr.handler.component.QueryComponent.doProcessUngroupedSearch(QueryComponent.java:1511) > [junit4] > at >org.apache.solr.handler.component.QueryComponent.process(QueryComponent.java:390) > [junit4] > at >org.apache.solr.handler.component.SearchHandler.handleRequestBody(SearchHandler.java:368) > [junit4] > at >org.apache.solr.handler.RequestHandlerBase.handleRequest(RequestHandlerBase.java:216) > [junit4] > at org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore.execute(SolrCore.java:2637) > >Looking at the stats for this test, it seems like it started failing >more consistently over the past week or so: >http://fucit.org/solr-jenkins-reports/history-trend-of-recent-failures.html#series/org.apache.solr.search.TestFiltering.testRandomFiltering > >I beasted it and 3/10 failed: > > [beaster] Tests with failures [seed: A5F8AAEF7994FE2B] (first 3 out of 10): > [beaster] - org.apache.solr.search.TestFiltering.testRandomFiltering > [beaster] - org.apache.solr.search.TestFiltering.testRandomFiltering > [beaster] - org.apache.solr.search.TestFiltering.testRandomFiltering > >I could just mark it as a BadApple and move on, but wanted to see if >anyone had any ideas about this test flakiness? > >Cheers, >Tim > >On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 4:06 PM Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Can we move discussion about the implementation to the JIRA issue or the PR? >> >> I'm not a lawyer, so not playing with the GPL fire is the easiest way for me >> to avoid getting burned. The regex I have is pretty straightforward, I do >> not feel like it is a great cause for alarm. >> >> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 4:18 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Given that we don't ship the code or binaries that involve that python >>> library, do we need to care about the license? I'm skeptical of hand rolled >>> regex and would rather favour either of the libraries Jan mentioned. Just >>> my two cents. >>> >>> On Sat, 18 Sep, 2021, 12:02 am Mike Drob, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> The second library you linked, Jan, is AGPL. Thank you for continuing to >>>> look for alternatives. >>>> >>>> I have some regular expressions cooked up locally that I think will let us >>>> read the split lines going forward, and will put up the patch shortly. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 7:45 AM Yuval Paz <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Not sure if this is something can be changed easily, but if the problem >>>>> is caused by some parsers don't know how to parse line wrapping in the >>>>> middle of the Hash why not moving the hash completely to the new line >>>>> (the specification allow new line at any point in the value)? >>>>> >>>>> The commit hash + date comes out to be exactly 71 bytes (including the >>>>> space at the start), and it should be a constant size, and by the time >>>>> the version will reach 48 bytes we all be probably dead >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 2:47 PM Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure, but that package is archived/read-only, GPLv3. with 3 watchers and >>>>>> 1 star. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 4:27 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Let's just follow the spec and move on. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Just tested this python package, which has no problem parsing the >>>>>> > problematic manifest https://pypi.org/project/jarmanifest/ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> manifest.getAttributes("/tmp/lucene-manifest.mf") >>>>>> > [{'implementationversion': '9.0.0-SNAPSHOT >>>>>> > de45b68c909815ce5ea7b6b9e1a2ce3375b6334d [snapshot build, details >>>>>> > omitted]'}] >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Jan >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 17. sep. 2021 kl. 09:32 skrev Dawid Weiss <[email protected]>: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > We could do a few things to keep everyone happy - >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 1) keep abbreviated hash in the Implementat-Version and use a separate >>>>>> > manifest entry to store a full hash. >>>>>> > 2) use a longer version for git show (abbrev=num) so that the chance >>>>>> > of collisions in the future is minimized. It's still not a full hash >>>>>> > but a >>>>>> > long(er) forced prefix. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > D. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 12:21 AM Chris Hostetter >>>>>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> : I was referring to doing this with languages other than java. >>>>>> >> : >>>>>> >> : I'm also assuming that exceeding this limit is going to cause >>>>>> >> indirect >>>>>> >> : hassles for users of lucene, e.g. breaking various security / supply >>>>>> >> : chain tools. We know a lot of these are total crap but people in the >>>>>> >> : corporate world have to suffer under them. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Just to be clear -- our 'Implementation-Version:' has been exceeding >>>>>> >> the >>>>>> >> 72 byte "single line" limit for a LOOOOONG time -- worrying about how >>>>>> >> "security / supply chain" tools will handle parsing that line now >>>>>> >> seems >>>>>> >> kind of silly... >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> If tools can't handle a line wrap in the 8.10 jars, then they haven't >>>>>> >> been able to handle the line wrap since we switched from svn to git >>>>>> >> (when >>>>>> >> the Implementation Version values switched from being based svn >>>>>> >> version# >>>>>> >> to git sha) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> The *ONLY* thing that's new here is where in the value the line wrap >>>>>> >> happens (with 8.10.0 it happens in the middle of the SHA) and that our >>>>>> >> smoketest tool isn't smart enough to parse the values properly. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> This is not even the first time we've even had a conversation about >>>>>> >> the >>>>>> >> smoke tester and Implementation Version line wraps: LUCENE-7023. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> : Its super-easy to use a short hash here and avoid problems. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> There is however an actual and practical downside to switching our >>>>>> >> implementation version to using a "short" SHA, and that's that we >>>>>> >> would >>>>>> >> lose the ability to garuntee that the information in the >>>>>> >> Implementation-Version uniquely identifies what commit a given jar was >>>>>> >> built from. Multiple commits with the same short(end) hash are >>>>>> >> possible >>>>>> >> -- Multiple commits with identical (full) commits is not. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Folks may think that using git tags is useful enough for figuring this >>>>>> >> out from official releases, but being able to look at the jar metadata >>>>>> >> from arbitrary builds off of arbitrary branches and sanity check where >>>>>> >> exactly they come from has been very useful to me for 10+ years. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> : On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 3:03 AM Dawid Weiss <[email protected]> >>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>> >> : > >>>>>> >> : > Jar command doesn't have it, true. But it's fairly trivial to do, >>>>>> >> even >>>>>> >> : > with an inline snippet like this one? >>>>>> >> : > >>>>>> >> : > public class PrintManifest { >>>>>> >> : > public static void main(String[] jars) throws IOException { >>>>>> >> : > for (var jar : jars) { >>>>>> >> : > var manifest = new >>>>>> >> JarFile(Paths.get(jar).toFile()).getManifest(); >>>>>> >> : > var attrs = manifest.getMainAttributes(); >>>>>> >> : > System.out.println(jar + ": " + >>>>>> >> attrs.getValue("Implementation-Version")); >>>>>> >> : > } >>>>>> >> : > } >>>>>> >> : > } >>>>>> >> : > >>>>>> >> : > I have this in my lucene-core-9.0.0-SNAPSHOT.jar: >>>>>> >> : > >>>>>> >> : > Implementation-Version: 9.0.0-SNAPSHOT >>>>>> >> de45b68c909815ce5ea7b6b9e1a2ce337 >>>>>> >> : > 5b6334d [snapshot build, details omitted] >>>>>> >> : > >>>>>> >> : > and running: >>>>>> >> : > >>>>>> >> : > java PrintManifest.java lucene-core-9.0.0-SNAPSHOT.jar >>>>>> >> : > >>>>>> >> : > shows: >>>>>> >> : > >>>>>> >> : > lucene-core-9.0.0-SNAPSHOT.jar: 9.0.0-SNAPSHOT >>>>>> >> : > de45b68c909815ce5ea7b6b9e1a2ce3375b6334d [snapshot build, details >>>>>> >> : > omitted] >>>>>> >> : > >>>>>> >> : > This seems easier to me than trying to remember and keep the >>>>>> >> length of >>>>>> >> : > that line shorter than an arbitrary limit. >>>>>> >> : > >>>>>> >> : > Dawid >>>>>> >> : > >>>>>> >> : > >>>>>> >> : > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 9:46 PM Robert Muir <[email protected]> >>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> : > > But its irrelevant that is "valid" when virtually no tools >>>>>> >> match it. >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> : > > In other words, I'd agree with you if the "jar" command had some >>>>>> >> : > > ability to read these manifests and print stuff to stdout, e.g. >>>>>> >> if >>>>>> >> : > > there was ANY interop at all here. >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> : > > But there isn't. So IMO it makes no sense to cause confusion >>>>>> >> and chaos >>>>>> >> : > > by adding an unnecessarily long git commit hash. >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> : > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 3:26 PM Dawid Weiss >>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >> : > > > >>>>>> >> : > > > >>>>>> >> : > > > This is valid manifest line-breaking though... Can we read >>>>>> >> the manifest properly on the smoke tester side somehow (for example, >>>>>> >> run a Java process that reads and extracts the required attribute)? >>>>>> >> This way we wouldn't care about the implementation details of how >>>>>> >> manifest wraps the lines (or escapes characters). >>>>>> >> : > > > >>>>>> >> : > > > D. >>>>>> >> : > > > >>>>>> >> : > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 8:46 PM Mike Drob <[email protected]> >>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>> >> : > > >> >>>>>> >> : > > >> The benchmark jar has the info we need… sort of. When I >>>>>> >> built it, it has: >>>>>> >> : > > >> >>>>>> >> : > > >> Implementation-Version: 8.10.0 >>>>>> >> 75a5061d3715cc5d93c4cbe4f1fa62bf035eea1 >>>>>> >> : > > >> 1 - mdrob - 2021-09-15 11:40:36 >>>>>> >> : > > >> >>>>>> >> : > > >> >>>>>> >> : > > >> and it’s looking for Implementation-Version: 8.10.0 >>>>>> >> 75a5061d3715cc5d93c4cbe4f1fa62bf035eea11 on one line. >>>>>> >> : > > >> >>>>>> >> : > > >> Because 8.10 is a character longer than 8.9, we happen to >>>>>> >> wrap the last character of the git commit sha. From the manifest spec: >>>>>> >> : > > >> >>>>>> >> : > > >> No line may be longer than 72 bytes (not characters), in its >>>>>> >> UTF8-encoded form. >>>>>> >> : > > >> If a value would make the initial line longer than this, it >>>>>> >> should be continued >>>>>> >> : > > >> on extra lines (each starting with a single SPACE). >>>>>> >> : > > >> >>>>>> >> : > > >> And we were already teetering on the edge of that limit. >>>>>> >> We'll run into this problem again in a few years when we try to >>>>>> >> release version 10.0.0, so solving it now has practical benefits down >>>>>> >> the line. >>>>>> >> : > > >> >>>>>> >> : > > >> There's a few options that I can come up with - >>>>>> >> : > > >> 1. Use the short-hash when we generate the jar >>>>>> >> : > > >> 2. Use the short-hash when we check the contents in the >>>>>> >> smoke test >>>>>> >> : > > >> 3. Do some line join magic in the smoke test. >>>>>> >> : > > >> >>>>>> >> : > > >> I'm leaning towards number 1 as I feel that would still be >>>>>> >> unique enough for our needs, but would like to hear from others as >>>>>> >> well. >>>>>> >> : > > >> >>>>>> >> : > > >> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 9:46 AM Timothy potter >>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >> : > > >>> >>>>>> >> : > > >>> can someone also please look into that benchmark jar issue? >>>>>> >> : > > >>> >>>>>> >> : > > >>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >> : > > >>> >>>>>> >> : > > >>> On Sep 15, 2021, at 9:44 AM, Nhat Nguyen >>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >> : > > >>> >>>>>> >> : > > >>> >>>>>> >> : > > >>> Thanks Mayya and Mike! I will backport it to the 8.10 >>>>>> >> branch. >>>>>> >> : > > >>> >>>>>> >> : > > >>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 10:12 AM Mike Drob >>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >> : > > >>>> >>>>>> >> : > > >>>> I think since Tim is out on vacation, it's probably not >>>>>> >> too late. That looks like a good fix to have, do we know how long the >>>>>> >> bug has been present? >>>>>> >> : > > >>>> >>>>>> >> : > > >>>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 7:56 AM Mayya Sharipova >>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>> >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>> We have discovered a bug and fixed a bug in Lucene sort >>>>>> >> optimization (LUCENE-10106) and would like to merge it to Lucene 8.10 >>>>>> >> if it is not too late. >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>> I apologize for the inconvenience, the bug was discovered >>>>>> >> just yesterday. >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>> >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 9:26 PM Timothy Potter >>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> Ahem ... unfortunately there will not be an 8.10 RC this >>>>>> >> week. I'm >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> headed out on vacation tomorrow, back at keys on Monday, >>>>>> >> Sept 20 >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> unless someone else wants to pick up the RM duties >>>>>> >> before then? >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> After failing the test suite at various places and other >>>>>> >> weirdness >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> like .asc files not getting created, I finally got to >>>>>> >> the smoke test >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> part, which is now failing with: >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> File >>>>>> >> "/Users/tjp/.lucene-releases/8.10.0/lucene-solr/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> line 176, in checkJARMetaData >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> raise RuntimeError('%s is missing "%s" inside its >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> META-INF/MANIFEST.MF (wrong git revision?)' % \ >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> RuntimeError: JAR file >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >> "/Users/tjp/.lucene-releases/8.10.0/RC1/smoketest/unpack/lucene-8.10.0/benchmark/lucene-benchmark-8.10.0.jar" >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> is missing "Implementation-Version: 8.10.0 >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> ecf5c747e6df418dd05a18af327c20051f0584d7" inside its >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> META-INF/MANIFEST.MF (wrong git revision?) >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> FWIW, I verified that the other Lucene JAR files have >>>>>> >> this line in >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> them, such as core: >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> Manifest-Version: 1.0 >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> Ant-Version: Apache Ant 1.9.15 >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> Created-By: 1.8.0_265-b01 (AppleJDK-8.0.265.1.1) >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> Extension-Name: org.apache.lucene >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> Specification-Title: Lucene Search Engine: core >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> Specification-Version: 8.10.0 >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> Specification-Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> Implementation-Title: org.apache.lucene >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> Implementation-Version: 8.10.0 >>>>>> >> ecf5c747e6df418dd05a18af327c20051f0584d >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> 7 - tjp - 2021-09-14 19:08:42 >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> Implementation-Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> X-Compile-Source-JDK: 8 >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> X-Compile-Target-JDK: 8 >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> Multi-Release: true >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 1:21 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> > All the best, this is the worst step. >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> > On Tue, 14 Sep, 2021, 10:47 pm Timothy Potter, >>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> Building RC1 now ... stay tuned. >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 2:30 PM Timothy Potter >>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > Thanks for the update Mike! >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > I'm backporting SOLR-15620 right now and am cooking >>>>>> >> up a quick PR for >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > SOLR-15621, which looks like an easy win for the >>>>>> >> issue Cassandra >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > reported on Slack earlier today. >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > Cheers, >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > Tim >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 11:32 AM Mike Drob >>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > Hi Tim, I'm still working on SOLR-15555, the code >>>>>> >> and benchmarking >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > both look pretty good, but I've got a few last >>>>>> >> unit tests that I need >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > to chase down. Hopefully taken care of by today >>>>>> >> or tomorrow, I'll be >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > sure to keep you updated though. >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 11:39 AM Timothy Potter >>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > I found >>>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15620 while testing >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > the schema designer. I haven't built the RC >>>>>> >> yet, so going to see if I >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > can get this in today. >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 12:36 PM Timothy Potter >>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > NOTICE: >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > Branch branch_8_10 has been cut and versions >>>>>> >> updated to 8.11 on stable branch. >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > Please observe the normal rules: >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > * No new features may be committed to the >>>>>> >> branch. >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > * Documentation patches, build patches and >>>>>> >> serious bug fixes may be >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > committed to the branch. However, you >>>>>> >> should submit all patches you >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > want to commit to Jira first to give others >>>>>> >> the chance to review >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > and possibly vote against the patch. Keep >>>>>> >> in mind that it is our >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > main intention to keep the branch as stable >>>>>> >> as possible. >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > * All patches that are intended for the >>>>>> >> branch should first be committed >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > to the unstable branch, merged into the >>>>>> >> stable branch, and then into >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > the current release branch. >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > * Normal unstable and stable branch >>>>>> >> development may continue as usual. >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > However, if you plan to commit a big change >>>>>> >> to the unstable branch >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > while the branch feature freeze is in >>>>>> >> effect, think twice: can't the >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > addition wait a couple more days? Merges of >>>>>> >> bug fixes into the branch >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > may become more difficult. >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > * Only Jira issues with Fix version 8.10 and >>>>>> >> priority "Blocker" will delay >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > a release candidate build. >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > > ---- >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > >>>>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> > > > 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] >>>>>> >> : > > >>>>>> >> : > >>>>>> >> : > >>>>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >> : > 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] >>>>>> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > -- Uwe Schindler Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen https://www.thetaphi.de
