Alright - everything looks pretty good on the Lucene 9.9.2 upgrade front. We still have one "blocker" for cutting 9.5 RC1 - SOLR-17068. It looks like there's an approved PR for that ticket ( https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/2227) but I know there's been some discussion of the overall approach there. (See the "CLI: bin/solr bin/post bin/postlogs -- what's happening" thread). Are we still planning to target 9.5 for this ticket? If so, is there a plan to get it merged?
As soon as SOLR-17068 is wrapped up I'll start on 9.5 RC1. Best, Jason On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:39 PM Christine Poerschke (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) < cpoersc...@bloomberg.net> wrote: > Thanks! https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17142 created for it, > not a blocker for 9.5 I think. > > From: dev@solr.apache.org At: 01/30/24 18:28:23 UTCTo: > dev@solr.apache.org > Subject: Re: New branch and feature freeze for Solr 9.5.0 > > Christine - David brought this up a few months ago - > https://lists.apache.org/thread/hlh1bmtgnmp55q8knhjtltf8t57pbl5q > > Kevin Risden > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:07 PM Christine Poerschke (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) < > cpoersc...@bloomberg.net> wrote: > > > Unrelated to baking times, I stumbled across a "unreferenced files under > > license folder" mystery: > > https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/2178#issuecomment-1917513343 > > > > Could someone try to reproduce the "running clean once and then precommit > > twice" sequence? > > > > Thanks, > > Christine > > > > From: dev@solr.apache.org At: 01/30/24 15:15:30 UTCTo: > > dev@solr.apache.org > > Subject: Re: New branch and feature freeze for Solr 9.5.0 > > > > Maybe? Obviously that was my initial plan as I mentioned above. But I > was > > pleasantly surprised to see the number of folks that chimed in with their > > own test results and +1's on Nazerke's Lucene-upgrade PR. It seemed > > comparable to the data points we'd get out of a multi-day "bake" in > > Jenkins. So I figured we might expedite the baking, or at least let it > > "bake" in parallel while I work on the RC. > > > > But I can also wait an additional few days if folks think it's > > necessary/valuable? > > > > (Also worth mentioning that this is still theoretical at this point - > we're > > still waiting on a fix for SOLR-17068 unless Eric changes his mind about > > getting it in 9.5.) > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 9:32 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < > > ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Should we wait at least 2-3 days for the Lucene 9.9.2 upgrade to bake > > > before we cut a release? > > > > > > On Tue, 30 Jan, 2024, 7:50 pm Jason Gerlowski, <gerlowsk...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Yes - I saw that right after my last email. Thanks for all your work > > on > > > > that Nazerke! I've merged and backported that PR; we're now on > Lucene > > > > 9.9.2! > > > > > > > > As soon as Eric's P #2227 is merged and backported I'll start on our > > RC! > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 7:33 AM Nazerke S <sn1.naze...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > > > > > fyi, we have an open PR <https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/2176 > > >for > > > > the > > > > > Lucene upgrade (v9.9.2) waiting for review. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 6:21 PM Jason Gerlowski < > > gerlowsk...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I'm working on the Lucene upgrade now. That will still need some > > > time > > > > in > > > > > > review (and maybe a day to let tests bake?), so I'm fine if you > > > > backport > > > > > > SOLR-17068 in that timeframe. But let's draw the line once the > > > Lucene > > > > > > 9.9.2 upgrade is in, unless something else urgent comes up. I'll > > > > target > > > > > > Wednesday or Thursday for the Solr RC1. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 4:15 PM Eric Pugh < > > > > > ep...@opensourceconnections.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason, I tackled SOLR-17068 (the one you reminded me of) and > I’d > > > love > > > > > to > > > > > > > get it into 9.5 since right now we have a terrible mish mash of > > > > > bin/solr > > > > > > > post and bin/post in the ref guide and docs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could someone review https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/2227 > > and > > > if > > > > > it > > > > > > > looks good could we sneak it into 9.5? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 26, 2024, at 6:29 PM, Eric Pugh < > > > > > > ep...@opensourceconnections.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Backport to branch_9_5 is done. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jan 26, 2024, at 1:11 PM, Jason Gerlowski < > > > > gerlowsk...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Go ahead and backport on your own! I'm still waiting on > > Lucene > > > > > 9.9.2, > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > >> there shouldn't be any branch-contention on my end. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Relatedly, Lucene has their RC1 out there and things look > > good a > > > > day > > > > > > or > > > > > > > two > > > > > > > >> into their VOTE, so with any luck we'll be able to get a > Solr > > > 9.5 > > > > RC > > > > > > > >> together early next week! > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Best, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Jason > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 8:49 AM Eric Pugh <ep...@apache.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> I am about to merge SOLR-17112, and will backport it to > > > > branch_9x. > > > > > > > Jason, > > > > > > > >>> do you backport it over to the branch_9_5 or do I? > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> ERic > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> On 2024/01/23 19:08:10 Jason Gerlowski wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>> It was hoped SOLR-17112 would make 9.4.1 but it didn't as > > no > > > PR > > > > > was > > > > > > > >>>> proposed. > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> SOLR-17120 [is] nominated for inclusion in the 9.5.0 > > release > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Those both sound quick and reasonable; they've got a +1 > from > > > me > > > > to > > > > > > go > > > > > > > >>> into > > > > > > > >>>> 9.5 (assuming the contributor decides to continue with > > > > > SOLR-17112). > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> Considering Lucene 9.9.2 is being planned, I think it > would > > > be > > > > > > better > > > > > > > >>> to > > > > > > > >>>>> upgrade Solr to the to-be-released version so users have > to > > > > deal > > > > > > with > > > > > > > >>>>> fewer upgrade cycles. > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Yeah, that might be best; I hadn't realized we weren't > > already > > > > on > > > > > > the > > > > > > > >>>> latest Lucene 9.x. I've created SOLR-17128 to track our > > > Lucene > > > > > > > upgrade > > > > > > > >>>> once 9.9.2 is available. > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Obviously this is a longer delay than some of the tickets > > > above, > > > > > and > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > >>>> mean we won't be cutting a Solr RC this week. We can > pick a > > > new > > > > > > date > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > >>>> the initial Solr 9.5 RC once Lucene 9.9.2 is available. > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Best, > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Jason > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 1:37 PM Anshum Gupta < > > > > > > ans...@anshumgupta.net> > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> Considering Lucene 9.9.2 is being planned, I think it > would > > > be > > > > > > better > > > > > > > >>> to > > > > > > > >>>>> upgrade Solr to the to-be-released version so users have > to > > > > deal > > > > > > with > > > > > > > >>> fewer > > > > > > > >>>>> upgrade cycles. > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> To highlight, there are about 90 odd changes in the > Lucene > > > > 9.9.x > > > > > > > line. > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> -Anshum > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 8:47 AM David Smiley < > > > > dsmi...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> FYI It was hoped SOLR-17112 > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17112 > > "bin/solr > > > > > script > > > > > > > >>>>>> doesn't do ps properly on some systems" would make 9.4.1 > > but > > > > it > > > > > > > >>> didn't > > > > > > > >>>>>> as no PR was proposed. There still isn't one but a > > > > contributor > > > > > is > > > > > > > >>>>>> thinking about it. > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:30 AM Christine Poerschke > > > > (BLOOMBERG/ > > > > > > > >>>>>> LONDON) <cpoersc...@bloomberg.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Just to cross-reference things further (Jason is > already > > > > aware) > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17120 and > > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/2214 are nominated > > for > > > > > > > >>> inclusion in > > > > > > > >>>>>> the 9.5 release, and as always additional reviews and > > inputs > > > > are > > > > > > > >>> welcome. > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Regards, > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Christine > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> From: dev@solr.apache.org At: 01/22/24 17:30:35 UTCTo: > > > > > > > >>>>>> dev@solr.apache.org > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Solr 9.5.0 > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> NOTICE: > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Branch branch_9_5 has been cut and versions updated to > > 9.6 > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > > > >>>>> stable > > > > > > > >>>>>>> branch. > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Please observe the normal rules: > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * No new features may be committed to the branch. > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Documentation patches, build patches and serious bug > > > fixes > > > > > may > > > > > > be > > > > > > > >>>>>>> committed to the branch. However, you should submit > all > > > > > patches > > > > > > > >>> you > > > > > > > >>>>>>> want to commit to Jira first to give others the chance > > to > > > > > review > > > > > > > >>>>>>> and possibly vote against the patch. Keep in mind that > > it > > > is > > > > > our > > > > > > > >>>>>>> main intention to keep the branch as stable as > possible. > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * All patches that are intended for the branch should > > first > > > > be > > > > > > > >>>>> committed > > > > > > > >>>>>>> to the unstable branch, merged into the stable branch, > > and > > > > > then > > > > > > > >>> into > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the current release branch. > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Normal unstable and stable branch development may > > > continue > > > > as > > > > > > > >>> usual. > > > > > > > >>>>>>> However, if you plan to commit a big change to the > > > unstable > > > > > > > >>> branch > > > > > > > >>>>>>> while the branch feature freeze is in effect, think > > twice: > > > > > can't > > > > > > > >>> the > > > > > > > >>>>>>> addition wait a couple more days? Merges of bug fixes > > into > > > > the > > > > > > > >>> branch > > > > > > > >>>>>>> may become more difficult. > > > > > > > >>>>>>> * Only Jira issues with Fix version 9.5 and priority > > > > "Blocker" > > > > > > will > > > > > > > >>>>> delay > > > > > > > >>>>>>> a release candidate build. > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> The feature-freeze for the 9.5 release will go till the > > end > > > > of > > > > > > this > > > > > > > >>>>> week > > > > > > > >>>>>> - > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'll aim to create our first RC on Thursday, January > > 25th. > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Best, > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Jason > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org > > > > > > > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > dev-h...@solr.apache.org > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> -- > > > > > > > >>>>> Anshum Gupta > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org > > > > > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________ > > > > > > > > Eric Pugh | Founder & CEO | OpenSource Connections, LLC | > > > > > 434.466.1467 > > > > > > | > > > > > > > http://www.opensourceconnections.com < > > > > > > > http://www.opensourceconnections.com/> | My Free/Busy < > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/eric-cal> > > > > > > > > Co-Author: Apache Solr Enterprise Search Server, 3rd Ed < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/apache-solr-enterpri > > se-search-server-third-edition-raw > > > < > https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/apache-solr-enterprise-search-server-third-edition-raw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is > > > considered > > > > to > > > > > > be > > > > > > > Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, > > regardless > > > > of > > > > > > > whether attachments are marked as such. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________ > > > > > > > Eric Pugh | Founder & CEO | OpenSource Connections, LLC | > > > > 434.466.1467 > > > > > | > > > > > > > http://www.opensourceconnections.com < > > > > > > > http://www.opensourceconnections.com/> | My Free/Busy < > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/eric-cal> > > > > > > > Co-Author: Apache Solr Enterprise Search Server, 3rd Ed < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/apache-solr-enterpri > > se-search-server-third-edition-raw > > > < > https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/apache-solr-enterprise-search-server-third-edition-raw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is > > considered > > > to > > > > > be > > > > > > > Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, > > regardless > > > > of > > > > > > > whether attachments are marked as such. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
