Thank you Tomoko. This vote has failed. I started a new vote for a RC2 that includes the fix for the Luke launch script.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 2:11 PM Tomoko Uchida <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok, thank you. I backported it to branch_9_0. > > Tomoko > > 2021年11月22日(月) 21:29 Adrien Grand <[email protected]>: > > > > Agreed, I'll respin. > > Tomoko, can you backport your fix to branch_9_0? > > > > Le lun. 22 nov. 2021 à 12:42, Dawid Weiss <[email protected]> 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 > >> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>: > >> > > > >> > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > >> > >> > 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 <[email protected]> > >> > >> > > 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 <[email protected]> > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > <[email protected]> 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 > >> > >> > >> > > <[email protected]> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> <[email protected]>: > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >>> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >>> <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > -----Original Message----- > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > From: Adrien Grand <[email protected]> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 9:25 AM > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > To: Lucene Dev <[email protected]> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > 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: > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > [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] > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Adrien > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > 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] > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > -- Adrien --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
