Hi, I checked a bit: branch_7x is also still alive and has some accidental commits in it. So maybe we should do the same there.
In general if we change this, don't forget to change github workflows: https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/.github/workflows/ant.yml Side note: I am missing the .asf.yaml file in the master branch of old repo. Where is this information stored? This file was there also to protect branches from writing (at least in github): https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/Git+-+.asf.yaml+features#Git.asf.yamlfeatures-BranchProtection 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: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 2:02 PM > To: Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org> > Subject: Re: What should we do of branch_8x? > > It looks like there is now general agreement on removing branch_8x? > > I wonder if we should actually remove it, which is prone to > re-creating the branch by mistake, vs. replacing the content of the > repository with a README that says that this branch is no longer under > development like we did for the `master` branch. > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 5:09 PM Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> > wrote: > > > > +1 to remove / lock branch_8x in the lucene-solr repo, i.e. there will not > > be an > 8.12 release by Lucene PMC. > > > > Whether Solr needs to release an 8.12 from own repos or not can be > discussed in dev@solr if/when needed. So far there is only loose talk, and I > think Solr PMC's energy should be devoted to the Solr 9.0 release. > > > > Jan > > > > > 22. nov. 2021 kl. 08:28 skrev Atri Sharma <a...@apache.org>: > > > > > > +1, agree with Uwe. > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 12:39 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > > > <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> +1 to Uwe's suggestion > > >> > > >> On Mon, 22 Nov, 2021, 11:13 am Gus Heck, <gus.h...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> +1 to uwe's suggestion > > >>> > > >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 10:42 PM Noble Paul <noble.p...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> 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 <u...@thetaphi.de> > 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 > <noble.p...@gmail.com>: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> 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 <jpou...@gmail.com> > 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 > <u...@thetaphi.de> 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: u...@thetaphi.de > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> From: Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 5:05 PM > > >>>>>>>> To: dev <dev@lucene.apache.org> > > >>>>>>>> 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 > <rcm...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>>>>>> <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:31 pm Robert Muir, <rcm...@gmail.com> > 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 > > >>>>>>>>>> <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> 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 > <rcm...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> 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, > <rcm...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> 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, > <u...@thetaphi.de> 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 <rcm...@gmail.com>: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> 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, > <rcm...@gmail.com> 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 > <jpou...@gmail.com> 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: 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 > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> Adrien > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> Uwe Schindler > > >>>>> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen > > >>>>> https://www.thetaphi.de > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > > >>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > > > > Atri > > > Apache Concerted > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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
