> I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either. I never expressed any intention of doing so. Besides, is it even possible (ASF policies wise)?
This is a weekend, and I feel bad holding up the 9.0 release (since this is a blocker). Solr PMC can decide later on Solr's releases, and hence I'm going to copy this branch_8x over to Solr repo's "lucene-solr/branch_8x" branch. On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:14 PM Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
