Agreed, I'll respin. Tomoko, can you backport your fix to branch_9_0? Le lun. 22 nov. 2021 à 12:42, Dawid Weiss <dawid.we...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> This is my copy/paste mistake - I work with Unixish shells all the > time but rarely with a user interface and didn't have a chance to > check. Let's see if anything else pops up but this is definitely worth > a respin in my opinion as it's one of the fundamental reasons for the > binary release to exist... > > Dawid > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 12:05 PM Tomoko Uchida > <tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > SUCCESS! [0:25:27.340580] > > > > I noticed the Luke start script for *nix does not work and pushed a > > fix [1] on main and branch_9x. The launch script for Windows works > > well. > > I am fine with the release candidate - it is a minor shell script bug > > and I think users can easily make a patch - but wanted to give notice > > of that, just in case. > > > > [1] > https://github.com/apache/lucene/commit/4193bcbc02313c82afcf8cf9e2d14e47466cb1c3 > > > > Tomoko > > > > 2021年11月22日(月) 6:18 Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > Fair enough. I don't think this requires respinning so what I'll do is > that I'll keep the vote thread open until we have a resolution on the issue. > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 1:29 PM Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> and yes, I think it is reasonable to be a blocker. If we release 9.0, > > >> promising 2 major versions of back compat, some of these options get > > >> removed from the table. > > >> > > >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:23 AM Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Thanks Ignacio, > > >> > > > >> > I see several choices, but the status quo of the testing is the > problem. > > >> > > > >> > One choice is to not make any technical changes, but do something to > > >> > prevent lucene from having to be compatible with 20 different > versions > > >> > :) For example, not supporting 2 major versions back would cut it in > > >> > half. Another solution would be to release major versions faster so > > >> > that we churn thru the versions at a more sustainable rate rather > than > > >> > having them pile up. > > >> > > > >> > Another option is to technically alter how the testing is done (as > > >> > suggested on the issue). It could mean that some of them only run > > >> > nightly or otherwise in jenkins. Which exact tests? I'm not sure, > just > > >> > as long as it becomes reasonable. > > >> > > > >> > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:18 AM Ignacio Vera <iver...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > Your issue has not been ignored but the problem is that the > version of the blocker has not been added so it doesn't appear in a search > for blockers in Lucene 9 :( > > >> > > > > >> > > Do we need to discuss this again? I thought we discussed and > agreed on increasing our backwards compatibility. My personal opinion is > that it is a natural step for mature software that it is increasingly used > in production environments. > > >> > > > > >> > > Regarding your concerns in the subject, there is a healthy > discussion in the issue and there are sound proposals to ease the pain and > they can be implemented any time, do you think it is still a blocker? > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 12:59 PM Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Along the same lines of back compat woes, I'd like to see my > blocker > > >> > >> issue about back compat testing addressed in the release > candidate, > > >> > >> rather than simply ignored. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10168 > > >> > >> > > >> > >> With the 9.0 release, we are attempting to *double* our backwards > > >> > >> compatibility guarantees (2 major versions), yet here we are > > >> > >> discussing insane release strategies that can't be > guaranteed/tested > > >> > >> to work (8.12-after-9.0-etc), here we are with back compat tests > > >> > >> taking a minute and half on branch_9_0! Imagine how long they > will > > >> > >> take for branch_9_9! > > >> > >> > > >> > >> When it comes to more back compat, people are quick to demand > more of > > >> > >> it every time. But when it comes to addressing the necessary > issues to > > >> > >> make it work...crickets. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 5:11 AM Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > -1 to release lucene 9.0, as long as branch_8x remains. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > I know you made a separate thread for this, but it is a real > problem. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > The problem is that we can't support backwards compatibility > like > > >> > >> > this: releasing 9.0 then 8.12's and stuff. It isn't how the > back > > >> > >> > compat testing works, it is completely cowboy and unsupported. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:19 AM Adrien Grand < > jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I think we should remove it but I remember it was > controversial in the past. I'll start a separate thread. > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Le sam. 20 nov. 2021 à 14:38, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> > a écrit : > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> Yes. But we won't have a 8.12 release so I assume the > branch_8x is dead. Maybe we should dass a note to it's readme or delete it? > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> Uwe > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> Am 20. November 2021 13:15:23 UTC schrieb Adrien Grand < > jpou...@gmail.com>: > > >> > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > >>> We need to keep the 8.11 jobs, but I think they can be > disabled. We typically only enable them when we start discussing doing a > new patch release? > > >> > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > >>> Le sam. 20 nov. 2021 à 12:51, Uwe Schindler < > u...@thetaphi.de> a écrit : > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> Hi, > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> I setup my usual release tester job on Policeman Jenkins > and it succeeded: > > >> > >> > >>>> SUCCESS! [0:19:00.801641] > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> See here for log: > https://jenkins.thetaphi.de/job/Lucene-Release-Tester/4/console > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> So it looks like technically the release is fine. I will > wait a bit with my +1, because I wanted to manually check the artifacts and > javadocs first. > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> I also enabled the 9.0 and 9.x builds on Policeman > Jenkins (sorry for the delay). At the same time I disabled 8.x builds. If > Solr people still need them we can enable them. But I think the only ones > we need now are 8.11.x ones, right? > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> Uwe > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> ----- > > >> > >> > >>>> Uwe Schindler > > >> > >> > >>>> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > > >> > >> > >>>> https://www.thetaphi.de > > >> > >> > >>>> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> > -----Original Message----- > > >> > >> > >>>> > From: Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> > >>>> > Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 9:25 AM > > >> > >> > >>>> > To: Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org> > > >> > >> > >>>> > Subject: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.0.0 RC1 > > >> > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.0.0. > > >> > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > The artifacts can be downloaded from: > > >> > >> > >>>> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.0.0-RC1-rev- > > >> > >> > >>>> > 903ee94dc50643299c15dfa954410f3ee4d62075 > > >> > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > You can run the smoke tester directly with this command: > > >> > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py \ > > >> > >> > >>>> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.0.0-RC1-rev- > > >> > >> > >>>> > 903ee94dc50643299c15dfa954410f3ee4d62075 > > >> > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > The vote will be open until 2021-11-24 09:00 UTC. > > >> > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > [ ] +1 approve > > >> > >> > >>>> > [ ] +0 no opinion > > >> > >> > >>>> > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > >> > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > Here is my +1 > > >> > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > -- > > >> > >> > >>>> > Adrien > > >> > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > >> > >>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > >> > >> > >>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: > dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > >> > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > >> > >> > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > >> > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > >> -- > > >> > >> > >> Uwe Schindler > > >> > >> > >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen > > >> > >> > >> https://www.thetaphi.de > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Adrien > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
