All Solr users using 8x and they will need some time to get comfortable with 9x . So, there is a good chance we may need to release an 8.12 based on Lucene 8.11
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021, 8:22 AM Adrien Grand <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 to making branch_8x read-only as Uwe suggested > > I think Uwe's other point is also important: if we ever wanted to do a > Solr 8.12, it'd probably be a better option to fork the 8.11 branch than to > try to reuse branch_8x. So we don't need to tie the decision about what we > want to do with branch_8x with future plans around an 8.12 release? > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:48 PM Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This is of course all possible, but: WHY the heck do this? >> >> >> >> Lucene 9.0 will come out likely very soon. After that just update the >> gradle file of Solr main and remove the temporary repository (better >> comment it out). After that adapt some changes and release Solr 9.0. >> >> >> >> From that point on both projects have a clear split point and everybody >> can make sure that the backwards compatibility is handled according to >> project’s needs. >> >> >> >> If the Solr 9.0 release is a intermediary point (not all deprecations >> removed), release Solr 10.0 four months later, who cares? Solr 9.0 will be >> the release with many new features and Java 11 as minimum requirement. >> >> >> >> I would really, really not start and fuck up the release process for 8.x! >> Why not release 8.11.1 soon, if you have any changes in Solr to do? Why do >> this release needs to be called 8.12? It is just a version number, so why >> the heck this big issues? I won’t think that Solr will add any major >> features before Solr 9. So what is your exact problem? >> >> >> >> Sorry, but this discussion is complete nonsense. Its just version numbers >> and some hick-hack between two parties that disagree. Keep calm and don’t >> try to make it overcomplicated! >> >> >> >> I never said that we should kill or delete branch_8x. It can stay there >> forever. I just suggested to make it read-only and add a note. Unless >> there’s really a need to do some 8.12 release (in which case, I’d fork 8.11 >> branch and move Lucene) I see no reason to act and fuck up the repositories >> of both projects which have now a very clear state. >> >> >> >> Uwe >> >> >> >> ----- >> >> Uwe Schindler >> >> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen >> >> https://www.thetaphi.de >> >> eMail: [email protected] >> >> >> >> *From:* Gus Heck <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Sunday, November 21, 2021 5:05 PM >> *To:* dev <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: What should we do of branch_8x? >> >> >> >> 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) >> > > > -- > Adrien >
