I think this is a reasonable suggestion Uwe. - We don't need to bring Gradle to 8.x - We can release 8.12 from a fork of 8.11. - we don't need to keep the Lucene source files in that branch. We can nuke it and just keep the Lucene binaries
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021, 8:49 AM Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > If this is really needed, I'd propose the following: > > - fork the branch_8_11 to solr's repo > - delete all subdirectories below lucene, keep common-build and other > stuff. > - add a single ivy.xml there that refers to all lucene jars of 8.11.x > (latest) > - adapt solr's "copy-lucene-jars" ant task to copy the ivy output dir > - delete the lucene stuff from release wizard. > > This is quick and easy. Adapting Gradle for a minor release is too hard. > > Am 21. November 2021 21:34:40 UTC schrieb Noble Paul <[email protected] > >: >> >> 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 >>> >> -- > Uwe Schindler > Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen > https://www.thetaphi.de >
