Since we want to be bending our energies towards Solr 10, I think if heroics 
are required for 9 then it’s okay to not back port.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 20, 2025, at 2:03 PM, Christos Malliaridis <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> It doesn't need to be backported. It was only a question of "if we want
> this update, we should make sure this is not a breaking change". Since I
> don't know if that may break something, or if the deserization still works
> with the previously serialized data, I thought I just ask for some
> reviewers that know better.
> 
> Worst that could happen is that we don't get that dependency update in 9x.
> 
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:28 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Can we make the change only for Solr 10, where breaking changes are
>> acceptable?
>> Or, does it need to be in 9x?
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, 16 Sept 2025 at 02:06, Christos Malliaridis <
>> [email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello everyone,
>>> 
>>> I am seeking advice for a potential breaking change that I may introduce
>>> with backporting the FasterXML version update (from 2.18.0 to 2.20.0).
>>> 
>>> The new version improves (as far as I understand the changelogs) the
>>> efficiency of the CBOR serialization, leading to smaller serialized
>>> objects. I believe that is the reason why the test (see backport PR
>> commit
>>> [1]) was failing and had to be updated.
>>> 
>>> However, I cannot estimate the impact of this change. I am not sure if
>> the
>>> different byte size could break compatibility with any existing
>>> (serialized) data during an update (if the test checks the byte size
>> there
>>> is likely a reason). I believe there is no risk of backporting, but I
>>> wanted to be sure before merging the version update to 9x.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Christos
>>> 
>>> [1]
>>> 
>>> 
>> https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/3536/commits/5e0210a180f1aac5b3086a69735d60409e12dabd
>>> 
>> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to