Hi, This is indeed a deliberate deviation from established branch process, as debated and decided in the "Solr 9.0.0 release in February" thread https://lists.apache.org/thread/pzqvmcxcjhkrj2xb31sj3pwzrn6x9vd3 and repeated on this very thread, so this is far from some SNEAKY attempt to trick you all :) However, the intent of minimizing number of backports in a period where the project is in 9.0 release focus (there will be tons of commits) seemd brilliant just a week ago, but I can see that we also need a place to land 9.1 features now and not wait until February.
As several committers are in support of freeing branch_9x for feature development for 9.1, I'll go ahead and create the branch_9_0 branch now. Ishan: What warrants a release is subjective, but noone can accuse the Solr project of RUSHING with the 9.0 release. Have a look at the Major Changes in Solr 9 <https://nightlies.apache.org/solr/draft-guides/solr-reference-guide-main/major-changes-in-solr-9.html> page if you need a reminder of what we have been keeping from our users (and developers not the least) for too long. Someone will always have a "killer feature" around the corner. Fine, then 9.1 will also get a nice killer feature. Or 9.2. More champagne! But lack of a brand new feature is never a blocker for any release. Jan > 8. jan. 2022 kl. 02:45 skrev Ishan Chattopadhyaya <[email protected]>: > > > branch_9x is in feature freeze! We want to stabilize > > Feature freeze is meant for the release branches. There is no precedent for > having a feature freeze on the stable branch. I urge you to follow well > established processes and not invent new processes on the fly and hold the > project hostage to those new processes. If you have concerns about the > stability of the commit, we can consider reverting from the stable branch. > > On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 7:11 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > What do we think about a "beta" release, to give users (including > > *ourselves* in many cases) more time to try out 9.0 to report issues? > +1 > > > It would be a shame to release Solr 9 without support for the vector based > > index in Lucene 9. Thankfully there's a JIRA issue with a PR! > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15880 > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15880> . It's as much about > > optics as anything. I think many users are probably more at a curiosity / > > exploratory stage with this topic but still -- Solr 9 without the ability > > to explore this is disappointing, leaving them to consider other options to > > scratch that itch. > > Fully agree with the sentiment here, David. Without the vector search > feature, I see no other important enough feature in a 9.0 release to capture > users' excitement. Commentators are already writing off Solr as legacy search > [0], and such a milestone release should address some of the areas in which > we're falling behind. > > If that feature is just a few weeks out, what is the need for this artificial > rush to get 9.0 out now? > > [0] - https://twitter.com/jobergum/status/1476657317768749062 > <https://twitter.com/jobergum/status/1476657317768749062> > > > On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 5:15 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > branch_9x is in feature freeze! We want to stabilize, fix bugs and remove > blockers on that branch, not add features - unless they are agreed as a > blocker for the release. > If everyone starts pushing all kinds of new features to 9x now, it will never > stabilize. > >>>> >>> Q: But my feature is almost ready and low-risk, I can surely put it on >>>> >>> branch_9x ? >>>> >>> A: No, only blockers and bugfixes please. You can argue on dev@ that >>>> >>> your feature is a blocker > > > I think it all looks a bit messy and rushed. SOLR-15694 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15694> is open, PR > <https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/403> is open, with no approvals from any > of the reviwers? > > Please revert on branch_9x and then "argue on dev@ that your feature is a > blocker". > > Jan > >> 7. jan. 2022 kl. 20:09 skrev Ishan Chattopadhyaya <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> >> Since a 9.0 release branch has not been cut, I backported the SOLR-15694 to >> branch_9x. If there are any concerns, we can discuss reverting it from >> branch_9_0 later. >> Thanks and regards. >> >> On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 10:34 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > let it bake in main (10.0) for some time, letting more devs try it out >> >> Please define "some time". Is 3 weeks until the 9.0 release not enough? >> >> On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 10:26 PM Jan Høydahl <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> I think it is premature to add it to branch_9x yet. First get +1 from key >> stakeholders on the PR, then let it bake in main (10.0) for some time, >> letting more devs try it out. If all looks good at that point, we may >> consider it, especially if the default behaviour is === 8.x. >> >> What do others think? >> >> Jan >> >>> 7. jan. 2022 kl. 11:26 skrev Ishan Chattopadhyaya >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>: >>> >>> > Btw - does Solr have any benchmarks published yet, that we can compare >>> > 8.11 with 9.0? Would be very useful. >>> >>> I can work on it over the weekend. I have some suites ready with me, but >>> not automated yet. >>> >>> > Today: Cut branch_9x and enter feature freeze on that branch >>> >>> I'd like to include SOLR-15694 (node roles) in 9.0, if that's okay with >>> you. It is dev complete, we're just running the tests to make sure the >>> failing tests are not due to our changes (and unrelated); we can commit it >>> over the weekend. >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 3:13 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> I don't think we are allowed by Apache policy to broadly announce >>> non-official releases like nightlies. >>> >>> There should be more than enough in 9.0 to warrant a major release. >>> Most users will be reluctant to jump on a X.0.0 release, so we can mature a >>> lot in 9.0.x. >>> >>> Perhaps if we start authoring the Release Notes (any volunteers?), we'll >>> see more clearly what we are about to relase. >>> And if we can have new sexy features in 9.1 and 9.2 that even warrants blog >>> posts and twitter bragging, even better :) >>> >>> Let's keep this release train rolling and force ourselves into getting this >>> out there sooner rather than later. We're not releasing the >>> reference-branch or anything, so I think a beta is not necessary, unless >>> the release phase ends up in endless RCs due to tons of bugs and >>> regressions. >>> >>> Btw - does Solr have any benchmarks published yet, that we can compare 8.11 >>> with 9.0? Would be very useful. >>> >>> Jan >>> >>>> 6. jan. 2022 kl. 22:24 skrev David Smiley <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >>>> >>>> What do we think about a "beta" release, to give users (including >>>> *ourselves* in many cases) more time to try out 9.0 to report issues? I >>>> don't think a beta release would necessitate a typical feature freeze. If >>>> we ultimately decline on a beta release, a counter-proposal would be to >>>> promote our nightly docker images everywhere (solr-users list, twitter, >>>> Slack) to solicit feedback. >>>> >>>> It would be a shame to release Solr 9 without support for the vector based >>>> index in Lucene 9. Thankfully there's a JIRA issue with a PR! >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15880 >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15880> . It's as much about >>>> optics as anything. I think many users are probably more at a curiosity / >>>> exploratory stage with this topic but still -- Solr 9 without the ability >>>> to explore this is disappointing, leaving them to consider other options >>>> to scratch that itch. >>>> >>>> ~ David Smiley >>>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer >>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 2:11 PM Timothy Potter <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> thanks Jan, PR looks good now! 😀 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 11:52 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> False alarm, I had a dirty checkout. >>>> Please see if your PR passes precommit. >>>> >>>> Jan >>>> >>>> > 6. jan. 2022 kl. 19:49 skrev Jan Høydahl <[email protected] >>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>>: >>>> > >>>> > Tim, I pushed a change to gradle that now uses hardcoded 9.0.0 for >>>> > tests.luceneMatchVersion. That's a stop-gap, will make it dynamically >>>> > follow the current lucene-version, but somehow my gradle project picked >>>> > up an old version of org.apache.lucene.utils.Version class... >>>> > >>>> > Now I get a new error >>>> > >>>> > * What went wrong: >>>> > Execution failed for task ':validateSourcePatterns'. >>>> >> Found 10 violations in source files (@author javadoc tag, svn keyword, >>>> >> tabs instead spaces). >>>> > >>>> > Jan >>>> > >>>> >> 6. jan. 2022 kl. 17:53 skrev Timothy Potter <[email protected] >>>> >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >>>> >> >>>> >> Thanks for the update Jan! >>>> >> >>>> >> One of my PRs (sync'd with main) is now failing precommit with: >>>> >> >>>> >> 105 actionable tasks: 103 executed, 2 up-to-date >>>> >> 201FAILURE: Build failed with an exception. >>>> >> 202 >>>> >> 203* Where: >>>> >> 204Script >>>> >> '/home/runner/work/solr/solr/gradle/validation/solr.config-file-sanity.gradle' >>>> >> line: 40 >>>> >> 205 >>>> >> 206* What went wrong: >>>> >> 207Execution failed for task ':solr:validateConfigFileSanity'. >>>> >> 208> Configset does not refer to the correct luceneMatchVersion >>>> >> (10.0.0): >>>> >> /home/runner/work/solr/solr/solr/server/solr/configsets/_default/conf/solrconfig.xml >>>> >> 209 >>>> >> >>>> >> Any ideas what's wrong there? >>>> >> >>>> >> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 9:40 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected] >>>> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> NOTICE: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Branch branch_9_x has been cut and versions updated to 10.0 on 'main' >>>> >>> branch. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> This follows the plan from previous notice about 9.0 release [1]. Here >>>> >>> is what will happen: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Today: Cut branch_9x and enter feature freeze on that branch >>>> >>> Next few weeks: Remove blockers, prepare build & release machinery >>>> >>> February: Cut branch_9_0 and build RC1 >>>> >>> >>>> >>> This is how we'll use the branches until we cut the branch_9_0 >>>> >>> release-branch: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> main: All new features and bug fixes (as today) >>>> >>> branch_9x: Only backport of bugfixes and blockers for the 9.0 release. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> FAQ: >>>> >>> ------ >>>> >>> Q: Where do I put a feature intended for 9.1? >>>> >>> A: On main branch. Then in February, bulk backport to branch_9x >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Q: Can we go to Java17 on main branch now? >>>> >>> A: Not yet, let's keep main branch as-is until branch_9_0 is cut, to >>>> >>> easen backporting >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Q: But my feature is almost ready and low-risk, I can surely put it on >>>> >>> branch_9x ? >>>> >>> A: No, only blockers and bugfixes please. You can argue on dev@ that >>>> >>> your feature is a blocker >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Q: How can I help with the 9.0 release? >>>> >>> A: You can check out the JIRA for blockers [2] and help fix those >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Q: Why do we need to wait until February with cutting the release >>>> >>> branch? >>>> >>> A: We don't - if blockers are resolved and we feel close to RC1 before >>>> >>> then... >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/qv9n2b7jkmzr26ov5p50lc3h2dy7htzo >>>> >>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/qv9n2b7jkmzr26ov5p50lc3h2dy7htzo> >>>> >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12351219 >>>> >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12351219> >>>> >> >>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> >>> >> >
