I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either. On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:42 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sounds good, Rob. Should I copy over the branch_8x to the solr repo until we > have further clarity on the course of action to be taken with Solr releases? > > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:10 pm Robert Muir, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Nope, it isn't crazy. I am trying to ensure the backwards >> compatibility that we have is on solid, sustainable footing before we >> release a new version promising double the back compat. >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:37 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Solr doesn't have backward compatability tests, only Lucene has. >> > >> > That's why I proposed leaving the door open for a Solr 8.12 release based >> > on already released 8.11 Lucene and not releasing any further 8.x minor >> > version release of Lucene. >> > >> > As I said, if that's problematic to do on branch_8x of lucene-solr, then >> > we can do so in the solr repo. If some urgent action to nuke the branch is >> > to be taken, please give some time to explore alternatives that affect >> > Solr's developement. >> > >> > Holding up Lucene 9.0 release for removal of branch_8x is lunacy, not the >> > continued existence of this branch in the shared repo, since a future >> > course of action should be deliberated upon before nuking the branch. >> > >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 5:34 pm Uwe Schindler, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I fully agree with Robert here. >> >> >> >> I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of this. Once we >> >> released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index file format >> >> will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0 will refuse >> >> to read. >> >> >> >> We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have index format >> >> changes and minor version numbers are not persisted. >> >> >> >> So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still want one, hold >> >> 9.0 release and add precautions for this. >> >> >> >> Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr and just add >> >> Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so Solr >> >> 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711. >> >> >> >> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to it in >> >> GitHub. Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene main I to >> >> branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes! >> >> >> >> Uwe >> >> >> >> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir <[email protected]>: >> >>> >> >>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards compatibility testing >> >>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat with >> >>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy. >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto >> >>>> >> >>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must >> >>>> provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the >> >>>> change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects >> >>>> performance, etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has >> >>>> no weight." >> >>>> >> >>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I think we should remove this branch. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can >> >>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards >> >>>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <[email protected]> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going >> >>>>>> to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ________________________________ >> >>>>> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
