Release of Solr 8.12 It should require the current lucene-solr 8.x branch to remove the lucene bits and declare a dependency on lucene 8.11 lucene, that bit shouldn't be too hard if done soon... and the release process for 8.x would not publish a lucene artifact which is likely the harder bit. I think the option should be open assuming someone is willing to do that work.What should not be an option is any further lucene releases on 8.x and I'd be very leery of any attempt to consume lucene 9.0 on Solr 8.x
The Lucene guarantees are irrelevant unless someone contemplates releasing an 8.12 lucene, and I really think that would require a positive vote from the Lucene PMC (which sounds very unlikely since I see fingers twitching over the -1 holsters there :) ) So while I don't favor deleting the entire solr 8.x branch I think it's now fine to remove lucene from it. To make things pretty, one could push the 8.x branch to the solr repo AFTER lucene is removed, but that sounds like busy work unless there is some formal or financial need to close the old repo. They are now fully separate projects and what solr does with the non-lucene bits is not a concern to lucene pmc (though almost all of us are on both committees of course, but hat wearing etc..) On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:43 AM Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] > > -- http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) http://www.the111shift.com (play)
