I dunno, this seems really crazy to me. Splitting out solr into its own repository and allowing it to be released independently from lucene has already been done, lots of work :) Why not just move forwards?
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:16 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:31 pm Robert Muir, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Sorry, I just don't understand the implications of what you are suggesting. >> >> The code in question is lucene+solr combined, and the build system and >> packaging and everything only knows how to do that. So are you forking >> all the lucene code into the solr repo too? > > > Need to split it up and remove the Lucene code from there in order to be able > to release Solr independently. We can do so later (I'm currently on travel), > if/when needed. >> >> >> I don't really understand your need to have a branch_8x. we can nuke >> it, and you can do any of this from a branch_8_11 some other day, no? > > > I guess we can, just don't know the divergence. Just to be on the safer side, > don't want to lose access to the branch_8x over a weekend before I or persons > more knowledgeable (on the differences between the branches) than I get a > chance to review the situation. Hence, I just copied the branch there for the > moment. >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:57 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
