Thanks Jan for the flexibility, esp with respect to the vector search thing. If it happens to be ready within your proposed timelines, it will be a good thing for our project. I don't advocate delaying the release, though.
> Honestly, if you are out of the chair when the music stops, you look more like a strong candidate for the next point release Release Manager than a strong current release savior. Music has stopped and Solr is fighting for the last chairs. We can discuss global warming as much as we want, but we need to save this project more urgently than saving the planet at the moment. On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 6:20 AM Noble Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:57 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > This is quite simple. > > - The 9.0 release is on-going - now on branch_9_0 > > - The normal feature feeze rules apply. Anything explicitly approved as > blocker gets in > > > > We can still consider adding features to the branch if the benfit/risk > ratio is high enough. Having a long stabilization period also helps. But > please ask before merging. > > > > The discussion whether we have "enough features" is i.m.o. silly, that's > not how it works, we release as often as possible, and major versions > annually. But this time around we wanted to wait for Lucene 9 which was > also delayed. Now, after almost 2 years on 8.x we have Java11, Lucene 9, > gradle build, embedded Docker image and tons of litle improvements for devs > as well as users. 8x is in bugfix mode so no new feature releases there. We > are currenlty blocked from getting ANY new feature into our users hands. > > > > Wrt node roles, it was not ok to knowingly sabotage the feature freeze, > but I'm not going to revert your commit. I'll put the incident on the > branch-confusion account. The feature appears to be backward compat and > high benefit, but it touches lots of core code paths, so I'd say there is a > medium/high risk of introducing new bugs. If you do not intend to revert, > please follow test failures and other feedback wrt that feature closely. > I'd also wish the Admin UI would show roles in some way. You can see the > properties in dashboard, but can you see the resolved roles for nodes > explicitly anywhere? I'm also surprised not to find an explicit NODE_ROLES > variable in solr.in.sh for a prominent feature like this - it would be so > much easier for e.g. solr-operator to configure roles for a node if it was > contained in a single env-var. > > > > Wrt vector search, it may go in if it is ready soon-ish, guess the code > is isolated enough to be low-risk, it can also be called out as > experimental. But i'm not willing to delay the release another month or > more (March-April?) just to wait for yet another feature. > > I agree with you Jan. If it's a few days away, we should accommodate > it. Definitely not a month. > > > > > I'm excited to get 9.0 into the hands of users. Let's make this happen! > > > > Jan > > > > > > 9. jan. 2022 kl. 08:16 skrev Ishan Chattopadhyaya < > [email protected]>: > > > > > 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 page if you need a reminder of what we have been keeping > from our users (and developers not the least) for too long. > > > > Apache Solr is a search engine. In that list, except for the UI page for > SQL, I don't see a new *search* related feature. A major release without > any compelling feature will keep users from upgrading. I don't understand > the hurry now when the vector search support is just around the corner. Why > can't we make an exception for that particular feature and include it in > the release, if it gets ready before the release? > > > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2022 at 11:35 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > Ishan, that also means that you only need to revert SOLR-15694 on > branch_9_0 > >> > >> In Apache Solr, committers don't tell other committers to revert > commits without a proper technical justification. You were late in cutting > the release branch for 9.0, and now "need" me to revert my commit because > you're not comfortable with the commit making it to the release? > >> > >> This is very demoralizing. When contributors work for months on a > feature, they hope to see a released version of Solr with that feature. In > the case of SOLR-15694, we took several extra steps to ensure broader > community participation. If you still demand of me to revert the commit, > I'll comply since I don't want to hold up this release. In that case, I'll > backport to a 8.12 release so that users can use the feature sooner than > waiting another 2-3 months for a 9.1 release. > >> > >> On Sun, Jan 9, 2022 at 11:05 AM Noble Paul <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> The New feature list for 9.0 is > >>> > >>> * Replica placement plugins > >>> * Rate limiting and task management > >>> * Certificate Auth Plugin > >>> * SQL Query interface in UI > >>> > >>> None of these are compelling search features which will motivate > >>> anyone to upgrade OTOH , vector search is a very attractive feature > >>> and even if it we release that as "experimental" users are likely to > >>> upgrade > >>> > >>> So, please consider including that > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, Jan 9, 2022 at 11:35 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > IMPORTANT > >>> > > >>> > Just created branch_9_0 off of branch_9x, and bumped version on > branch_9x to 9.1. > >>> > > >>> > This means that everything is back to normal branch structure, and > the feature freeze is now only on branch_9_0. > >>> > > >>> > Ishan, that also means that you only need to revert SOLR-15694 on > branch_9_0, and let it remain on branch_9x, while you let it bake. > >>> > > >>> > I also added these Jenkins jobs: > >>> > - Solr-Artifacts-9x > >>> > - Solr-Check-9.x > >>> > - Solr-reference-guide-9.x > >>> > - Solr-Artifacts-9.0 > >>> > - Solr-Check-9.0 > >>> > - Solr-reference-guide-9.0 > >>> > > >>> > Jan > >>> > > >>> > 9. jan. 2022 kl. 01:04 skrev Jan Høydahl <[email protected]>: > >>> > > >>> > 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 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]> 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 . 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 > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 5:15 AM Jan Høydahl <[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 is open, > PR 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]>: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> 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]> 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]> 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]>: > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > 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]> 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]>: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> 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 . 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 > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 2:11 PM Timothy Potter < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> thanks Jan, PR looks good now! 😀 > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 11:52 AM Jan Høydahl < > [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]>: > >>> >>>>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>>>> > 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]>: > >>> >>>>>>>> >> > >>> >>>>>>>> >> 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]> 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 > >>> >>>>>>>> >>> [2] > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12351219 > >>> >>>>>>>> >> > >>> >>>>>>>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> >>>>>>>> >> 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] > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> ----------------------------------------------------- > >>> Noble Paul > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>> > > > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------- > Noble Paul > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
