Re: Solr Admin UI Refresh 2020

[Mike Drob]

In phase 2, will the admin ui be running in the same jetty container as the
solr application?

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 4:35 PM Marcus Eagan  wrote:

> SIP here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/Updated+Solr+Admin+UI
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:32 AM Gus Heck  wrote:
>
>> If Marcus has ability to edit existing pages, why don't we create the
>> empty page for him and sort out access granting issues later. I'd hate for
>> this much needed SIP to bog down on a technical issue.
>>
>> -Gus
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 7:10 AM Jan Høydahl 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Please retry. I gave edit access to confluence user id
>>> ‘marcussorealheis’.
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>> 20. apr. 2020 kl. 01:30 skrev Marcus Eagan :
>>>
>>> I do need help. I am not allowed to create a SIP. Or, I have been unable
>>> to create a SIP in three previous attempts.
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 3:45 AM Jan Høydahl 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Thanks. The PR is useful for people to try out the UI. But for overall
 replacement plan I really think we neeed that SIP, do you still need help
 with Confluence?

 Jan Høydahl

 19. apr. 2020 kl. 06:30 skrev Marcus Eagan :

 
 I hope everybody is enjoying their weekend and is in good health.

 Filed a Jira, made a PR:
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14414

 Still, quite a bit more work to do. I need to spend some time on the
 query screen, improving the cluster view, and adding alias, and more tests.
 The last three should be pretty easy. Would probably spend a couple weeks
 working on style as well, but that can be an ongoing effort, just as making
 it package manager compatible and using v2 commands. There are also many
 areas where the Use of TypeScript or the Angular framework will improve.
 That will come with time, some involvement from a few Angular wizards, and
 a bit of research.

 Thank you everyone,

 Marcus

 On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:01 PM Marcus Eagan 
 wrote:

>
> Gus, At first it looked like it let me, but today it seemed that it
> did not allow me to create a SIP.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:57 AM Gus Heck  wrote:
>
>> First, sorry you’re having problems with Confluence. I suspect the
>>> issue is permissions. There are only two groups allowed to add pages to 
>>> the
>>> SOLR space, “lucene” and “lucene-pmc”. I believe these correspond to ASF
>>> LDAP groups, which would mean they include committers and PMC members 
>>> only.
>>> We can grant you individual permission to add/edit pages, however; we’ve
>>> done this for a handful of others. I could do this for you, just ping me
>>> off-thread so I can confirm your username.
>>>
>>
>> If  that is the issue, then we should advertise clearly on the SIP
>> page that non-committers wishing to create a SIP should request access on
>> this list. That's probably a good mechanic because it ensures that 
>> contact
>> with this list is established first. And it sounds like confluence is
>> allowing him to start editing and then throwing away all his work on
>> submission which is VERY bad behavior... Possibly an INFRA ticket if that
>> is indeed the case...
>>
>> @Marcus can you confirm that you tried to create a page, it appeared
>> to let you and then threw out your work on submission? (or am I reading
>> what you wrote wrong?)
>>
>
>
> --
> Marcus Eagan
>
>

 --
 Marcus Eagan


>>>
>>> --
>>> Marcus Eagan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
>> http://www.the111shift.com (play)
>>
>
>
> --
> Marcus Eagan
>
>

Re: 7.7.3 bugfix release

[Noble Paul]

thanks Adrien

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:22 PM Adrien Grand  wrote:
>
> FYI I just re-enabled 7.7 builds on the Apache Jenkins.
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:17 PM jim ferenczi  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ì merged LUCENE-9300 in the 7.7 branch.
>>
>> > I shall cut the branch in a day or two
>>
>> I guess you meant create the first BC since the branch is already created 
>> (branch_7_7) ;)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 15 avr. 2020 à 09:21, Noble Paul  a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hi, Please merge all the required changes to the branch branch_7_7
>>>
>>> I shall cut the branch in a day or two
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:14 PM jim ferenczi  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi Paul,
>>> > Ignacio have started the release process for a bug fix release of 8.5.1 
>>> > last week.
>>> > We cannot have two releases at the same time so would you agree to start 
>>> > 7.7.3 after 8.5.1 is out ?
>>> > I'd also like to backport LUCENE-9300 in 7.7 (the reason why we started 
>>> > a. 8.5.1 release) so don't hesitate if you need help or to delegate the 
>>> > release if you don't have the time at the moment.
>>> >
>>> > - Jim
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 18:35, Houston Putman  a 
>>> > écrit :
>>> >>
>>> >> I've backported SOLR-13v69. After you add in SOLR-14013 Noble, we should 
>>> >> be good to go with 7.7.3 I think.
>>> >>
>>> >> - Houston
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 1:17 PM Jan Høydahl  
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Falde alarm, I needed to update my branch :)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Jan Høydahl
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 14. feb. 2020 kl. 19:11 skrev Jan Høydahl :
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What commit hash is the backport of SOLR-13971? I cannot find it and 
>>> >>> there is no CHANGES entry…?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 14. feb. 2020 kl. 17:52 skrev Ishan Chattopadhyaya 
>>> >>> :
>>> >>>
>>> >>> +1, Houston. That's my understanding as well. Please go ahead with the 
>>> >>> backport.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Fri, 14 Feb, 2020, 9:02 PM Houston Putman,  
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  It looks like CVE-2019-17558 / SOLR-13971 has already been taken care 
>>>  of: 
>>>  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13971?focusedCommentId=17014356=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17014356
>>> 
>>>  So now CVE-2019-0193 / SOLR-13669 should be the only blocker. By the 
>>>  description in the JIRA, it looks like backporting 
>>>  https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/commit/025f8763549151397284af28091cfd360307baa2
>>>   should be enough. Is this correct, or am I missing something?
>>> 
>>>  - HOuston
>>> 
>>>  On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:59 PM Jan Høydahl  
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>  I’m afraid I don’t have the bandwidth the next couple of weeks.
>>> 
>>>  Jan Høydahl
>>> 
>>>  > 13. feb. 2020 kl. 16:27 skrev Noble Paul :
>>>  >
>>>  > Do you wish to backport them?
>>>  >
>>>  >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 7:55 PM Jan Høydahl  
>>>  >> wrote:
>>>  >>
>>>  >> According to NVD, there are at least two published CVEs that 
>>>  >> affects 7.7.2 (CVE-2019-17558 / SOLR-13971 and CVE-2019-0193 / 
>>>  >> SOLR-13669). We cannot release 7.7.3 with these still present.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> Jan
>>>  >>
>>>  >> 13. feb. 2020 kl. 06:42 skrev Noble Paul :
>>>  >>
>>>  >> I'm planning to back port  SOLR-14013 and do a bug fix release soon.
>>>  >> Please let me know if there is anything hat you wish to be included
>>>  >>
>>>  >> --
>>>  >> -
>>>  >> Noble Paul
>>>  >>
>>>  >> -
>>>  >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>>  >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>>  >>
>>>  >>
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  > --
>>>  > -
>>>  > Noble Paul
>>>  >
>>>  > -
>>>  > To unsubscribe, %-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
>>> 
>>> >>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -
>>> Noble Paul
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>
>
> --
> Adrien



-- 
-
Noble Paul

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, 

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 7.7.3 RC1

[Michael Sokolov]

+1

SUCCESS! [0:55:50.289256]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:48 PM Atri Sharma  wrote:
>
> +1
>
> SUCCESS! [0:44:583254]
>
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 00:16, Gus Heck  wrote:
>>
>> +1 (linux ubuntu 18.04)
>>
>> SUCCESS! [0:43:51.661530]
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:44 PM Houston Putman  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>
>>> SUCCESS! [1:23:37.392736]
>>>
>>> I also ran the multi-valued field performance test on 7.7.2 and 7.7.3 (rc1) 
>>> to make sure that the backport of SOLR-14013 was successful. Definitely 
>>> looks like it was.
>>>
>>>
>>> Indexing test
>>>
>>> 7.7.2 0m0.558s
>>>
>>> 7.7.3 0m0.926s
>>>
>>>
>>> Sharded Query test
>>>
>>> 7.7.2 0m16.932s
>>>
>>> 7.7.3 0m0.281s
>>>
>>>
>>> Non-Distrib Query JavaBin test
>>>
>>> 7.7.2 0m16.933s
>>>
>>> 7.7.3 0m0.099s
>>>
>>>
>>> Non-Distrib Query JSON test
>>>
>>> 7.7.2 0m0.074s
>>>
>>> 7.7.3 0m0.056s
>>>
>>>
>>> - Houston
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:36 PM Nhat Nguyen 
>>>  wrote:

 +1

 SUCCESS! [0:48:12.629243]

 On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:29 PM Michael McCandless 
  wrote:
>
> +1
>
> SUCCESS! [0:36:47.309043]
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:22 PM Kevin Risden  wrote:
>>
>> +1 SUCCESS! [1:38:36.140929]
>>
>> Kevin Risden
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:09 AM Ignacio Vera  wrote:
>> >
>> > No issues here
>> >
>> > +1 SUCCESS! [1:20:57.847225]
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:33 PM Jan Høydahl  
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> SUCCESS! [1:05:02.194590]
>> >> No issues
>> >>
>> >> +1 (did not additional manual checking than running the smoketester)
>> >>
>> >> Jan
>> >>
>> >> > 21. apr. 2020 kl. 12:27 skrev Andrzej Białecki :
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > I’m getting the following error, looks like the checksum doesn’t 
>> >> > match the file:
>> >> >
>> >> > Test Solr...
>> >> >  test basics...
>> >> >  check changes HTML...
>> >> >  download solr-7.7.3-src.tgz...
>> >> >56.9 MB in 586.29 sec (0.1 MB/sec)
>> >> >verify sha512 digest
>> >> > Traceback (most recent call last):
>> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1518, in 
>> >> > 
>> >> >main()
>> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1448, in main
>> >> >smokeTest(c.java, c.url, c.revision, c.version, c.tmp_dir, 
>> >> > c.is_signed, c.local_keys, ' '.join(c.test_args))
>> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1504, in 
>> >> > smokeTest
>> >> >checkSigs('solr', solrPath, version, tmpDir, isSigned, keysFile)
>> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 366, in 
>> >> > checkSigs
>> >> >verifyDigests(artifact, urlString, tmpDir)
>> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 556, in 
>> >> > verifyDigests
>> >> >raise RuntimeError('SHA512 digest mismatch for %s: expected %s 
>> >> > but got %s' % (artifact, sha512Expected, sha512Actual))
>> >> > RuntimeError: SHA512 digest mismatch for solr-7.7.3-src.tgz: 
>> >> > expected 
>> >> > 549ab2c35ecfba4610921f0951b3b78595da2bcb6e36da2f2a06828a64a01e656c8d424b4ba8d559b638ab62d871827f004f5f02b8e1eed3b9a0e0cbfd31e8ac
>> >> >  but got 
>> >> > 57a34207b6c742eae42cf5a0a15eb773d545902314c593c6f10794e6854e2c9ea6b252e9761da9ed5e13915882d6eddba87971495ff88c2cb643f523b6aaff77
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 21 Apr 2020, at 11:36, Noble Paul  wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> sorry, the direct command is
>> >> >>
>> >> >> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>> >> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85/
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:15 PM Noble Paul  
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Please vote for release candidate ? for Lucene/Solr 7.7.3
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>> >> >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>> >> >>> /tmp/releases/7.7.3/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Here's my +1
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> SUCCESS! [1:48:02.520060]
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> --
>> >> >>> -
>> >> >>> Noble Paul
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> -
>> >> >> Noble Paul
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -

Overseer documentation

[Ilan Ginzburg]

Hello Solr devs,

This is my first post here. I work at Salesforce in France, we're
adopting SolrCloud and we need it to scale more than it currently
does.

I've looked at Overseer and documented my understanding. I'm sharing
the result, it might help others and is a way to get feedback (I might
have misunderstood some things) and/or collaboration on continuing
documenting the implementation. Basically I started writing the doc I
wanted to find.

In the process, I believe I've identified what may be a few bugs
(there's a section listing them at the beginning). I've found these by
reading code (not running code), so take with a grain of salt.
I plan to file Jiras for those bugs that do seem real and are
important enough, and then also start working on some to help
fix/improve.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHq3noZBVUQ7QNuBGEhujZ_duwTVpAsvN3Nz5anQUY/

This is WIP. Please do not hesitate to provide feedback/leave comments.

Thanks,
Ilan

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 7.7.3 RC1

[Atri Sharma]

+1

SUCCESS! [0:44:583254]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 00:16, Gus Heck  wrote:

> +1 (linux ubuntu 18.04)
>
> SUCCESS! [0:43:51.661530]
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:44 PM Houston Putman 
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> SUCCESS! [1:23:37.392736]
>>
>> I also ran the multi-valued field performance test on 7.7.2 and 7.7.3
>> (rc1) to make sure that the backport of SOLR-14013
>>  was successful.
>> Definitely looks like it was.
>>
>>
>> *Indexing test*
>>
>> 7.7.2 0m0.558s
>>
>> 7.7.3 0m0.926s
>>
>>
>> *Sharded Query test*
>>
>> 7.7.2 0m16.932s
>>
>> 7.7.3 0m0.281s
>>
>>
>> *Non-Distrib Query JavaBin test*
>>
>> 7.7.2 0m16.933s
>>
>> 7.7.3 0m0.099s
>>
>>
>> *Non-Distrib Query JSON test*
>>
>> 7.7.2 0m0.074s
>>
>> 7.7.3 0m0.056s
>>
>>
>> - Houston
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:36 PM Nhat Nguyen
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> SUCCESS! [0:48:12.629243]
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:29 PM Michael McCandless <
>>> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>>>
 +1

 SUCCESS! [0:36:47.309043]

 Mike McCandless

 http://blog.mikemccandless.com


 On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:22 PM Kevin Risden 
 wrote:

> +1 SUCCESS! [1:38:36.140929]
>
> Kevin Risden
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:09 AM Ignacio Vera 
> wrote:
> >
> > No issues here
> >
> > +1 SUCCESS! [1:20:57.847225]
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:33 PM Jan Høydahl 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> SUCCESS! [1:05:02.194590]
> >> No issues
> >>
> >> +1 (did not additional manual checking than running the smoketester)
> >>
> >> Jan
> >>
> >> > 21. apr. 2020 kl. 12:27 skrev Andrzej Białecki :
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I’m getting the following error, looks like the checksum doesn’t
> match the file:
> >> >
> >> > Test Solr...
> >> >  test basics...
> >> >  check changes HTML...
> >> >  download solr-7.7.3-src.tgz...
> >> >56.9 MB in 586.29 sec (0.1 MB/sec)
> >> >verify sha512 digest
> >> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1518, in
> 
> >> >main()
> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1448, in main
> >> >smokeTest(c.java, c.url, c.revision, c.version, c.tmp_dir,
> c.is_signed, c.local_keys, ' '.join(c.test_args))
> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1504, in
> smokeTest
> >> >checkSigs('solr', solrPath, version, tmpDir, isSigned,
> keysFile)
> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 366, in
> checkSigs
> >> >verifyDigests(artifact, urlString, tmpDir)
> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 556, in
> verifyDigests
> >> >raise RuntimeError('SHA512 digest mismatch for %s: expected %s
> but got %s' % (artifact, sha512Expected, sha512Actual))
> >> > RuntimeError: SHA512 digest mismatch for solr-7.7.3-src.tgz:
> expected
> 549ab2c35ecfba4610921f0951b3b78595da2bcb6e36da2f2a06828a64a01e656c8d424b4ba8d559b638ab62d871827f004f5f02b8e1eed3b9a0e0cbfd31e8ac
> but got
> 57a34207b6c742eae42cf5a0a15eb773d545902314c593c6f10794e6854e2c9ea6b252e9761da9ed5e13915882d6eddba87971495ff88c2cb643f523b6aaff77
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> On 21 Apr 2020, at 11:36, Noble Paul 
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> sorry, the direct command is
> >> >>
> >> >> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> >> >>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85/
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:15 PM Noble Paul 
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Please vote for release candidate ? for Lucene/Solr 7.7.3
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
> >> >>>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
> >> >>>
> >> >>> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> >> >>>
> /tmp/releases/7.7.3/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Here's my +1
> >> >>>
> >> >>> SUCCESS! [1:48:02.520060]
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> -
> >> >>> Noble Paul
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> -
> >> >> Noble Paul
> >> >>
> >> >>
> -
> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> 

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 7.7.3 RC1

[Gus Heck]

+1 (linux ubuntu 18.04)

SUCCESS! [0:43:51.661530]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:44 PM Houston Putman 
wrote:

> +1
>
>
> SUCCESS! [1:23:37.392736]
>
> I also ran the multi-valued field performance test on 7.7.2 and 7.7.3
> (rc1) to make sure that the backport of SOLR-14013
>  was successful.
> Definitely looks like it was.
>
>
> *Indexing test*
>
> 7.7.2 0m0.558s
>
> 7.7.3 0m0.926s
>
>
> *Sharded Query test*
>
> 7.7.2 0m16.932s
>
> 7.7.3 0m0.281s
>
>
> *Non-Distrib Query JavaBin test*
>
> 7.7.2 0m16.933s
>
> 7.7.3 0m0.099s
>
>
> *Non-Distrib Query JSON test*
>
> 7.7.2 0m0.074s
>
> 7.7.3 0m0.056s
>
>
> - Houston
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:36 PM Nhat Nguyen
>  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> SUCCESS! [0:48:12.629243]
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:29 PM Michael McCandless <
>> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> SUCCESS! [0:36:47.309043]
>>>
>>> Mike McCandless
>>>
>>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:22 PM Kevin Risden 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1 SUCCESS! [1:38:36.140929]

 Kevin Risden

 On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:09 AM Ignacio Vera 
 wrote:
 >
 > No issues here
 >
 > +1 SUCCESS! [1:20:57.847225]
 >
 > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:33 PM Jan Høydahl 
 wrote:
 >>
 >> SUCCESS! [1:05:02.194590]
 >> No issues
 >>
 >> +1 (did not additional manual checking than running the smoketester)
 >>
 >> Jan
 >>
 >> > 21. apr. 2020 kl. 12:27 skrev Andrzej Białecki :
 >> >
 >> > Hi,
 >> >
 >> > I’m getting the following error, looks like the checksum doesn’t
 match the file:
 >> >
 >> > Test Solr...
 >> >  test basics...
 >> >  check changes HTML...
 >> >  download solr-7.7.3-src.tgz...
 >> >56.9 MB in 586.29 sec (0.1 MB/sec)
 >> >verify sha512 digest
 >> > Traceback (most recent call last):
 >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1518, in
 
 >> >main()
 >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1448, in main
 >> >smokeTest(c.java, c.url, c.revision, c.version, c.tmp_dir,
 c.is_signed, c.local_keys, ' '.join(c.test_args))
 >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1504, in
 smokeTest
 >> >checkSigs('solr', solrPath, version, tmpDir, isSigned, keysFile)
 >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 366, in
 checkSigs
 >> >verifyDigests(artifact, urlString, tmpDir)
 >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 556, in
 verifyDigests
 >> >raise RuntimeError('SHA512 digest mismatch for %s: expected %s
 but got %s' % (artifact, sha512Expected, sha512Actual))
 >> > RuntimeError: SHA512 digest mismatch for solr-7.7.3-src.tgz:
 expected
 549ab2c35ecfba4610921f0951b3b78595da2bcb6e36da2f2a06828a64a01e656c8d424b4ba8d559b638ab62d871827f004f5f02b8e1eed3b9a0e0cbfd31e8ac
 but got
 57a34207b6c742eae42cf5a0a15eb773d545902314c593c6f10794e6854e2c9ea6b252e9761da9ed5e13915882d6eddba87971495ff88c2cb643f523b6aaff77
 >> >
 >> >
 >> >
 >> >> On 21 Apr 2020, at 11:36, Noble Paul 
 wrote:
 >> >>
 >> >> sorry, the direct command is
 >> >>
 >> >> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
 >> >>
 https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85/
 >> >>
 >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:15 PM Noble Paul 
 wrote:
 >> >>>
 >> >>> Please vote for release candidate ? for Lucene/Solr 7.7.3
 >> >>>
 >> >>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
 >> >>>
 https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
 >> >>>
 >> >>> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
 >> >>>
 >> >>> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
 >> >>>
 /tmp/releases/7.7.3/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
 >> >>>
 >> >>>
 >> >>> Here's my +1
 >> >>>
 >> >>> SUCCESS! [1:48:02.520060]
 >> >>>
 >> >>> --
 >> >>> -
 >> >>> Noble Paul
 >> >>
 >> >>
 >> >>
 >> >> --
 >> >> -
 >> >> Noble Paul
 >> >>
 >> >>
 -
 >> >> 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
 >> >
 >>
 >>
 >> 

Re: Require consistency between different data-structures sharing the same field name as of 9.0?

[Michael McCandless]

+1

We already have a minimal enforcement of consistent schema in IndexWriter.
It checks that you are not trying to change the doc values type for a given
field, e.g. from NUMERIC to SORTED.

Maybe we could add these new checks there?  E.g., if this field was
previously indexed with both doc values and points, then require that
future documents also include both doc values (of same type) and points (of
same dimensionality), or neither (that doc is missing the field)?

And also "sugar" oal.document.FieldXXX class that enables both doc values
and points and is the "obvious" class to use to index numeric values that
you want to range filter and sort on.

I agree it's tricky to confirm that the same original numeric value is in
the points data (which is already a packed byte[] by the time IW sees it)
and the doc values data.

We would need some BWC to handle pre-8.x indices that did not record that
they in fact had indexed the same values as points and doc values.  Maybe
they just don't get this optimization, and the caller must construct the
full query themselves, as is required today?

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com


On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:50 AM Adrien Grand  wrote:

> Thanks all, the initial feedback sounds positive so I opened
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9334. As Mike pointed out,
> this could be a first step towards having something that looks more like a
> proper schema.
>
> I like the idea of exposing higher-level abstractions, like a field that
> would index as points, add doc values (but which ones? Numeric or
> SortedNumeric?) and maybe stored fields all at once.
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 6:12 PM David Smiley 
> wrote:
>
>> What Alan says makes sense to me -- simple and sufficiently addresses the
>> pain point Adrien raises.  I don't think we need a long class name which is
>> also some extra class in addition to the current one (confusing); I'd
>> prefer one simple numeric class name (per int/long/float/double) with a
>> constructor that indicates indexed/docValues.
>>
>> I also agree with Michael Sokolov; it's crazy Lucene FieldInfos doesn't
>> have some basic numeric type metadata.
>>
>> ~ David Smiley
>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:15 AM Michael Sokolov 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Could we use this as a stepping stone towards a schema? Just a very
>>> lightweight schema that only enforces what we can easily enforce
>>> today, but put some minimal abstraction in place where we can hang
>>> future consistency checks.
>>>
>>> Re: value consistency; could we do a best-effort enforcement in
>>> DefaultIndexingChain where we have the values unencoded?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:48 AM Alan Woodward 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > One way of doing this might be to add an additional field type that
>>> adds both point and docvalues, and then have factory methods for queries
>>> and sorts on the field type.  So for example a LongPointAndValue field
>>> would automatically index its value into both BKD and NumericDocValues, and
>>> then LongPointAndValue#newRangeQuery() would build the relevant
>>> IndexOrDocValuesQuery, and LongPointAndValue#newSortField() would return a
>>> sort field that can use the shortcuts.
>>> >
>>> > On 20 Apr 2020, at 14:10, Adrien Grand  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hello,
>>> >
>>> > Lucene currently doesn't require consistency across data-structures.
>>> For instance it is possible to have different values in points and doc
>>> values under the same field name. Until now, we worked around it either by
>>> making features use a single data-structure, e.g. facets only use doc
>>> values, or by pushing the responsibility of having consistent data across
>>> data-structures to the user, e.g. IndexOrDocValuesQuery requires that the
>>> point query and the doc-value query match the same documents and it's the
>>> responsibility of the user to ensure this.
>>> >
>>> > I'm unhappy that it makes Lucene very hard to use. Creating an
>>> efficient range query should be a one-liner, but due to this limitation,
>>> users have to first learn about LongPointQuery#newRangeQuery,
>>> NumericDocValuesField#newSlowRangeQuery and then combine them with
>>> IndexOrDocValuesQuery or maybe even
>>> IndexSortSortedNumericDocValuesRangeQuery. If Lucene had a requirement that
>>> if a field both has points and numeric doc values then both data-structurs
>>> contain the same content, then we could automatically use the
>>> IndexOrDocValuesQuery optimization in LongPoint#newRangeQuery when noticing
>>> that the field also has doc values of type NUMERIC or SORTED_NUMERIC.
>>> >
>>> > This question is being raised again as we are working on dynamically
>>> pruning uncompetitive hits when sorting by field by leveraging the points
>>> index.[1] This can produce very significant speedups but again requires
>>> that the same data be indexed in points and doc values.
>>> >
>>> > [1] 

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 7.7.3 RC1

[Houston Putman]

+1


SUCCESS! [1:23:37.392736]

I also ran the multi-valued field performance test on 7.7.2 and 7.7.3 (rc1)
to make sure that the backport of SOLR-14013
 was successful.
Definitely looks like it was.


*Indexing test*

7.7.2 0m0.558s

7.7.3 0m0.926s


*Sharded Query test*

7.7.2 0m16.932s

7.7.3 0m0.281s


*Non-Distrib Query JavaBin test*

7.7.2 0m16.933s

7.7.3 0m0.099s


*Non-Distrib Query JSON test*

7.7.2 0m0.074s

7.7.3 0m0.056s


- Houston

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:36 PM Nhat Nguyen 
wrote:

> +1
>
> SUCCESS! [0:48:12.629243]
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:29 PM Michael McCandless <
> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> SUCCESS! [0:36:47.309043]
>>
>> Mike McCandless
>>
>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:22 PM Kevin Risden  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 SUCCESS! [1:38:36.140929]
>>>
>>> Kevin Risden
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:09 AM Ignacio Vera  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > No issues here
>>> >
>>> > +1 SUCCESS! [1:20:57.847225]
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:33 PM Jan Høydahl 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> SUCCESS! [1:05:02.194590]
>>> >> No issues
>>> >>
>>> >> +1 (did not additional manual checking than running the smoketester)
>>> >>
>>> >> Jan
>>> >>
>>> >> > 21. apr. 2020 kl. 12:27 skrev Andrzej Białecki :
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Hi,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I’m getting the following error, looks like the checksum doesn’t
>>> match the file:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Test Solr...
>>> >> >  test basics...
>>> >> >  check changes HTML...
>>> >> >  download solr-7.7.3-src.tgz...
>>> >> >56.9 MB in 586.29 sec (0.1 MB/sec)
>>> >> >verify sha512 digest
>>> >> > Traceback (most recent call last):
>>> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1518, in
>>> 
>>> >> >main()
>>> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1448, in main
>>> >> >smokeTest(c.java, c.url, c.revision, c.version, c.tmp_dir,
>>> c.is_signed, c.local_keys, ' '.join(c.test_args))
>>> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1504, in
>>> smokeTest
>>> >> >checkSigs('solr', solrPath, version, tmpDir, isSigned, keysFile)
>>> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 366, in
>>> checkSigs
>>> >> >verifyDigests(artifact, urlString, tmpDir)
>>> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 556, in
>>> verifyDigests
>>> >> >raise RuntimeError('SHA512 digest mismatch for %s: expected %s
>>> but got %s' % (artifact, sha512Expected, sha512Actual))
>>> >> > RuntimeError: SHA512 digest mismatch for solr-7.7.3-src.tgz:
>>> expected
>>> 549ab2c35ecfba4610921f0951b3b78595da2bcb6e36da2f2a06828a64a01e656c8d424b4ba8d559b638ab62d871827f004f5f02b8e1eed3b9a0e0cbfd31e8ac
>>> but got
>>> 57a34207b6c742eae42cf5a0a15eb773d545902314c593c6f10794e6854e2c9ea6b252e9761da9ed5e13915882d6eddba87971495ff88c2cb643f523b6aaff77
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> On 21 Apr 2020, at 11:36, Noble Paul  wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> sorry, the direct command is
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>>> >> >>
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85/
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:15 PM Noble Paul 
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> Please vote for release candidate ? for Lucene/Solr 7.7.3
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>>> >> >>>
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>>> >> >>>
>>> /tmp/releases/7.7.3/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> Here's my +1
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> SUCCESS! [1:48:02.520060]
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> --
>>> >> >>> -
>>> >> >>> Noble Paul
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> -
>>> >> >> Noble Paul
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> -
>>> >> >> 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
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> -
>>> >> 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 

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 7.7.3 RC1

[Nhat Nguyen]

+1

SUCCESS! [0:48:12.629243]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:29 PM Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> SUCCESS! [0:36:47.309043]
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:22 PM Kevin Risden  wrote:
>
>> +1 SUCCESS! [1:38:36.140929]
>>
>> Kevin Risden
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:09 AM Ignacio Vera  wrote:
>> >
>> > No issues here
>> >
>> > +1 SUCCESS! [1:20:57.847225]
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:33 PM Jan Høydahl 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> SUCCESS! [1:05:02.194590]
>> >> No issues
>> >>
>> >> +1 (did not additional manual checking than running the smoketester)
>> >>
>> >> Jan
>> >>
>> >> > 21. apr. 2020 kl. 12:27 skrev Andrzej Białecki :
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > I’m getting the following error, looks like the checksum doesn’t
>> match the file:
>> >> >
>> >> > Test Solr...
>> >> >  test basics...
>> >> >  check changes HTML...
>> >> >  download solr-7.7.3-src.tgz...
>> >> >56.9 MB in 586.29 sec (0.1 MB/sec)
>> >> >verify sha512 digest
>> >> > Traceback (most recent call last):
>> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1518, in 
>> >> >main()
>> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1448, in main
>> >> >smokeTest(c.java, c.url, c.revision, c.version, c.tmp_dir,
>> c.is_signed, c.local_keys, ' '.join(c.test_args))
>> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1504, in
>> smokeTest
>> >> >checkSigs('solr', solrPath, version, tmpDir, isSigned, keysFile)
>> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 366, in checkSigs
>> >> >verifyDigests(artifact, urlString, tmpDir)
>> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 556, in
>> verifyDigests
>> >> >raise RuntimeError('SHA512 digest mismatch for %s: expected %s
>> but got %s' % (artifact, sha512Expected, sha512Actual))
>> >> > RuntimeError: SHA512 digest mismatch for solr-7.7.3-src.tgz:
>> expected
>> 549ab2c35ecfba4610921f0951b3b78595da2bcb6e36da2f2a06828a64a01e656c8d424b4ba8d559b638ab62d871827f004f5f02b8e1eed3b9a0e0cbfd31e8ac
>> but got
>> 57a34207b6c742eae42cf5a0a15eb773d545902314c593c6f10794e6854e2c9ea6b252e9761da9ed5e13915882d6eddba87971495ff88c2cb643f523b6aaff77
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 21 Apr 2020, at 11:36, Noble Paul  wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> sorry, the direct command is
>> >> >>
>> >> >> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>> >> >>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85/
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:15 PM Noble Paul 
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Please vote for release candidate ? for Lucene/Solr 7.7.3
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>> >> >>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>> >> >>>
>> /tmp/releases/7.7.3/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Here's my +1
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> SUCCESS! [1:48:02.520060]
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> --
>> >> >>> -
>> >> >>> Noble Paul
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> -
>> >> >> Noble Paul
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> -
>> >> >> 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
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -
>> >> 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
>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 7.7.3 RC1

[Michael McCandless]

+1

SUCCESS! [0:36:47.309043]

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com


On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:22 PM Kevin Risden  wrote:

> +1 SUCCESS! [1:38:36.140929]
>
> Kevin Risden
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:09 AM Ignacio Vera  wrote:
> >
> > No issues here
> >
> > +1 SUCCESS! [1:20:57.847225]
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:33 PM Jan Høydahl 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> SUCCESS! [1:05:02.194590]
> >> No issues
> >>
> >> +1 (did not additional manual checking than running the smoketester)
> >>
> >> Jan
> >>
> >> > 21. apr. 2020 kl. 12:27 skrev Andrzej Białecki :
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I’m getting the following error, looks like the checksum doesn’t
> match the file:
> >> >
> >> > Test Solr...
> >> >  test basics...
> >> >  check changes HTML...
> >> >  download solr-7.7.3-src.tgz...
> >> >56.9 MB in 586.29 sec (0.1 MB/sec)
> >> >verify sha512 digest
> >> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1518, in 
> >> >main()
> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1448, in main
> >> >smokeTest(c.java, c.url, c.revision, c.version, c.tmp_dir,
> c.is_signed, c.local_keys, ' '.join(c.test_args))
> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1504, in smokeTest
> >> >checkSigs('solr', solrPath, version, tmpDir, isSigned, keysFile)
> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 366, in checkSigs
> >> >verifyDigests(artifact, urlString, tmpDir)
> >> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 556, in
> verifyDigests
> >> >raise RuntimeError('SHA512 digest mismatch for %s: expected %s but
> got %s' % (artifact, sha512Expected, sha512Actual))
> >> > RuntimeError: SHA512 digest mismatch for solr-7.7.3-src.tgz: expected
> 549ab2c35ecfba4610921f0951b3b78595da2bcb6e36da2f2a06828a64a01e656c8d424b4ba8d559b638ab62d871827f004f5f02b8e1eed3b9a0e0cbfd31e8ac
> but got
> 57a34207b6c742eae42cf5a0a15eb773d545902314c593c6f10794e6854e2c9ea6b252e9761da9ed5e13915882d6eddba87971495ff88c2cb643f523b6aaff77
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> On 21 Apr 2020, at 11:36, Noble Paul  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> sorry, the direct command is
> >> >>
> >> >> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> >> >>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85/
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:15 PM Noble Paul 
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Please vote for release candidate ? for Lucene/Solr 7.7.3
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
> >> >>>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
> >> >>>
> >> >>> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> >> >>>
> /tmp/releases/7.7.3/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Here's my +1
> >> >>>
> >> >>> SUCCESS! [1:48:02.520060]
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> -
> >> >>> Noble Paul
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> -
> >> >> Noble Paul
> >> >>
> >> >> -
> >> >> 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
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >> 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
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 7.7.3 RC1

[Kevin Risden]

+1 SUCCESS! [1:38:36.140929]

Kevin Risden

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:09 AM Ignacio Vera  wrote:
>
> No issues here
>
> +1 SUCCESS! [1:20:57.847225]
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:33 PM Jan Høydahl  wrote:
>>
>> SUCCESS! [1:05:02.194590]
>> No issues
>>
>> +1 (did not additional manual checking than running the smoketester)
>>
>> Jan
>>
>> > 21. apr. 2020 kl. 12:27 skrev Andrzej Białecki :
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I’m getting the following error, looks like the checksum doesn’t match the 
>> > file:
>> >
>> > Test Solr...
>> >  test basics...
>> >  check changes HTML...
>> >  download solr-7.7.3-src.tgz...
>> >56.9 MB in 586.29 sec (0.1 MB/sec)
>> >verify sha512 digest
>> > Traceback (most recent call last):
>> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1518, in 
>> >main()
>> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1448, in main
>> >smokeTest(c.java, c.url, c.revision, c.version, c.tmp_dir, c.is_signed, 
>> > c.local_keys, ' '.join(c.test_args))
>> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1504, in smokeTest
>> >checkSigs('solr', solrPath, version, tmpDir, isSigned, keysFile)
>> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 366, in checkSigs
>> >verifyDigests(artifact, urlString, tmpDir)
>> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 556, in verifyDigests
>> >raise RuntimeError('SHA512 digest mismatch for %s: expected %s but got 
>> > %s' % (artifact, sha512Expected, sha512Actual))
>> > RuntimeError: SHA512 digest mismatch for solr-7.7.3-src.tgz: expected 
>> > 549ab2c35ecfba4610921f0951b3b78595da2bcb6e36da2f2a06828a64a01e656c8d424b4ba8d559b638ab62d871827f004f5f02b8e1eed3b9a0e0cbfd31e8ac
>> >  but got 
>> > 57a34207b6c742eae42cf5a0a15eb773d545902314c593c6f10794e6854e2c9ea6b252e9761da9ed5e13915882d6eddba87971495ff88c2cb643f523b6aaff77
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 21 Apr 2020, at 11:36, Noble Paul  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> sorry, the direct command is
>> >>
>> >> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85/
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:15 PM Noble Paul  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Please vote for release candidate ? for Lucene/Solr 7.7.3
>> >>>
>> >>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>> >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
>> >>>
>> >>> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
>> >>>
>> >>> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>> >>> /tmp/releases/7.7.3/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Here's my +1
>> >>>
>> >>> SUCCESS! [1:48:02.520060]
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> -
>> >>> Noble Paul
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> -
>> >> Noble Paul
>> >>
>> >> -
>> >> 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
>> >
>>
>>
>> -
>> 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

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 7.7.3 RC1

[Ignacio Vera]

No issues here

+1 SUCCESS! [1:20:57.847225]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:33 PM Jan Høydahl  wrote:

> SUCCESS! [1:05:02.194590]
> No issues
>
> +1 (did not additional manual checking than running the smoketester)
>
> Jan
>
> > 21. apr. 2020 kl. 12:27 skrev Andrzej Białecki :
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I’m getting the following error, looks like the checksum doesn’t match
> the file:
> >
> > Test Solr...
> >  test basics...
> >  check changes HTML...
> >  download solr-7.7.3-src.tgz...
> >56.9 MB in 586.29 sec (0.1 MB/sec)
> >verify sha512 digest
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1518, in 
> >main()
> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1448, in main
> >smokeTest(c.java, c.url, c.revision, c.version, c.tmp_dir,
> c.is_signed, c.local_keys, ' '.join(c.test_args))
> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1504, in smokeTest
> >checkSigs('solr', solrPath, version, tmpDir, isSigned, keysFile)
> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 366, in checkSigs
> >verifyDigests(artifact, urlString, tmpDir)
> >  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 556, in verifyDigests
> >raise RuntimeError('SHA512 digest mismatch for %s: expected %s but
> got %s' % (artifact, sha512Expected, sha512Actual))
> > RuntimeError: SHA512 digest mismatch for solr-7.7.3-src.tgz: expected
> 549ab2c35ecfba4610921f0951b3b78595da2bcb6e36da2f2a06828a64a01e656c8d424b4ba8d559b638ab62d871827f004f5f02b8e1eed3b9a0e0cbfd31e8ac
> but got
> 57a34207b6c742eae42cf5a0a15eb773d545902314c593c6f10794e6854e2c9ea6b252e9761da9ed5e13915882d6eddba87971495ff88c2cb643f523b6aaff77
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 21 Apr 2020, at 11:36, Noble Paul  wrote:
> >>
> >> sorry, the direct command is
> >>
> >> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> >>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85/
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:15 PM Noble Paul 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Please vote for release candidate ? for Lucene/Solr 7.7.3
> >>>
> >>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
> >>>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
> >>>
> >>> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
> >>>
> >>> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> >>>
> /tmp/releases/7.7.3/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Here's my +1
> >>>
> >>> SUCCESS! [1:48:02.520060]
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> -
> >>> Noble Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> -
> >> Noble Paul
> >>
> >> -
> >> 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
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 7.7.3 RC1

[Jan Høydahl]

SUCCESS! [1:05:02.194590]
No issues

+1 (did not additional manual checking than running the smoketester)

Jan

> 21. apr. 2020 kl. 12:27 skrev Andrzej Białecki :
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I’m getting the following error, looks like the checksum doesn’t match the 
> file:
> 
> Test Solr...
>  test basics...
>  check changes HTML...
>  download solr-7.7.3-src.tgz...
>56.9 MB in 586.29 sec (0.1 MB/sec)
>verify sha512 digest
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1518, in 
>main()
>  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1448, in main
>smokeTest(c.java, c.url, c.revision, c.version, c.tmp_dir, c.is_signed, 
> c.local_keys, ' '.join(c.test_args))
>  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1504, in smokeTest
>checkSigs('solr', solrPath, version, tmpDir, isSigned, keysFile)
>  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 366, in checkSigs
>verifyDigests(artifact, urlString, tmpDir)
>  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 556, in verifyDigests
>raise RuntimeError('SHA512 digest mismatch for %s: expected %s but got %s' 
> % (artifact, sha512Expected, sha512Actual))
> RuntimeError: SHA512 digest mismatch for solr-7.7.3-src.tgz: expected 
> 549ab2c35ecfba4610921f0951b3b78595da2bcb6e36da2f2a06828a64a01e656c8d424b4ba8d559b638ab62d871827f004f5f02b8e1eed3b9a0e0cbfd31e8ac
>  but got 
> 57a34207b6c742eae42cf5a0a15eb773d545902314c593c6f10794e6854e2c9ea6b252e9761da9ed5e13915882d6eddba87971495ff88c2cb643f523b6aaff77
> 
> 
> 
>> On 21 Apr 2020, at 11:36, Noble Paul  wrote:
>> 
>> sorry, the direct command is
>> 
>> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85/
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:15 PM Noble Paul  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Please vote for release candidate ? for Lucene/Solr 7.7.3
>>> 
>>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
>>> 
>>> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
>>> 
>>> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>>> /tmp/releases/7.7.3/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Here's my +1
>>> 
>>> SUCCESS! [1:48:02.520060]
>>> 
>>> --
>>> -
>>> Noble Paul
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> -
>> Noble Paul
>> 
>> -
>> 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
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 7.7.3 RC1

[Noble Paul]

Did anyone else try the build?

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 8:31 PM Andrzej Białecki  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I’m getting the following error, looks like the checksum doesn’t match the 
> file:
>
> Test Solr...
>   test basics...
>   check changes HTML...
>   download solr-7.7.3-src.tgz...
> 56.9 MB in 586.29 sec (0.1 MB/sec)
> verify sha512 digest
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1518, in 
> main()
>   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1448, in main
> smokeTest(c.java, c.url, c.revision, c.version, c.tmp_dir, c.is_signed, 
> c.local_keys, ' '.join(c.test_args))
>   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1504, in smokeTest
> checkSigs('solr', solrPath, version, tmpDir, isSigned, keysFile)
>   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 366, in checkSigs
> verifyDigests(artifact, urlString, tmpDir)
>   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 556, in verifyDigests
> raise RuntimeError('SHA512 digest mismatch for %s: expected %s but got 
> %s' % (artifact, sha512Expected, sha512Actual))
> RuntimeError: SHA512 digest mismatch for solr-7.7.3-src.tgz: expected 
> 549ab2c35ecfba4610921f0951b3b78595da2bcb6e36da2f2a06828a64a01e656c8d424b4ba8d559b638ab62d871827f004f5f02b8e1eed3b9a0e0cbfd31e8ac
>  but got 
> 57a34207b6c742eae42cf5a0a15eb773d545902314c593c6f10794e6854e2c9ea6b252e9761da9ed5e13915882d6eddba87971495ff88c2cb643f523b6aaff77
>
>
>
> > On 21 Apr 2020, at 11:36, Noble Paul  wrote:
> >
> > sorry, the direct command is
> >
> > python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85/
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:15 PM Noble Paul  wrote:
> >>
> >> Please vote for release candidate ? for Lucene/Solr 7.7.3
> >>
> >> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
> >>
> >> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
> >>
> >> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> >> /tmp/releases/7.7.3/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
> >>
> >>
> >> Here's my +1
> >>
> >> SUCCESS! [1:48:02.520060]
> >>
> >> --
> >> -
> >> Noble Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -
> > Noble Paul
> >
> > -
> > 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
>


-- 
-
Noble Paul

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 7.7.3 RC1

[Adrien Grand]

I didn't get the same error as Andrzej while running the smoketester.

+1 SUCCESS! [3:49:55.694980]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:31 PM Andrzej Białecki  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I’m getting the following error, looks like the checksum doesn’t match the
> file:
>
> Test Solr...
>   test basics...
>   check changes HTML...
>   download solr-7.7.3-src.tgz...
> 56.9 MB in 586.29 sec (0.1 MB/sec)
> verify sha512 digest
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1518, in 
> main()
>   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1448, in main
> smokeTest(c.java, c.url, c.revision, c.version, c.tmp_dir,
> c.is_signed, c.local_keys, ' '.join(c.test_args))
>   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1504, in smokeTest
> checkSigs('solr', solrPath, version, tmpDir, isSigned, keysFile)
>   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 366, in checkSigs
> verifyDigests(artifact, urlString, tmpDir)
>   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 556, in verifyDigests
> raise RuntimeError('SHA512 digest mismatch for %s: expected %s but got
> %s' % (artifact, sha512Expected, sha512Actual))
> RuntimeError: SHA512 digest mismatch for solr-7.7.3-src.tgz: expected
> 549ab2c35ecfba4610921f0951b3b78595da2bcb6e36da2f2a06828a64a01e656c8d424b4ba8d559b638ab62d871827f004f5f02b8e1eed3b9a0e0cbfd31e8ac
> but got
> 57a34207b6c742eae42cf5a0a15eb773d545902314c593c6f10794e6854e2c9ea6b252e9761da9ed5e13915882d6eddba87971495ff88c2cb643f523b6aaff77
>
>
>
> > On 21 Apr 2020, at 11:36, Noble Paul  wrote:
> >
> > sorry, the direct command is
> >
> > python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85/
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:15 PM Noble Paul  wrote:
> >>
> >> Please vote for release candidate ? for Lucene/Solr 7.7.3
> >>
> >> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
> >>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
> >>
> >> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
> >>
> >> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> >>
> /tmp/releases/7.7.3/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
> >>
> >>
> >> Here's my +1
> >>
> >> SUCCESS! [1:48:02.520060]
> >>
> >> --
> >> -
> >> Noble Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -
> > Noble Paul
> >
> > -
> > 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

Re: Require consistency between different data-structures sharing the same field name as of 9.0?

[Adrien Grand]

Thanks all, the initial feedback sounds positive so I opened
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9334. As Mike pointed out,
this could be a first step towards having something that looks more like a
proper schema.

I like the idea of exposing higher-level abstractions, like a field that
would index as points, add doc values (but which ones? Numeric or
SortedNumeric?) and maybe stored fields all at once.

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 6:12 PM David Smiley 
wrote:

> What Alan says makes sense to me -- simple and sufficiently addresses the
> pain point Adrien raises.  I don't think we need a long class name which is
> also some extra class in addition to the current one (confusing); I'd
> prefer one simple numeric class name (per int/long/float/double) with a
> constructor that indicates indexed/docValues.
>
> I also agree with Michael Sokolov; it's crazy Lucene FieldInfos doesn't
> have some basic numeric type metadata.
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:15 AM Michael Sokolov 
> wrote:
>
>> Could we use this as a stepping stone towards a schema? Just a very
>> lightweight schema that only enforces what we can easily enforce
>> today, but put some minimal abstraction in place where we can hang
>> future consistency checks.
>>
>> Re: value consistency; could we do a best-effort enforcement in
>> DefaultIndexingChain where we have the values unencoded?
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 9:48 AM Alan Woodward 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > One way of doing this might be to add an additional field type that
>> adds both point and docvalues, and then have factory methods for queries
>> and sorts on the field type.  So for example a LongPointAndValue field
>> would automatically index its value into both BKD and NumericDocValues, and
>> then LongPointAndValue#newRangeQuery() would build the relevant
>> IndexOrDocValuesQuery, and LongPointAndValue#newSortField() would return a
>> sort field that can use the shortcuts.
>> >
>> > On 20 Apr 2020, at 14:10, Adrien Grand  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > Lucene currently doesn't require consistency across data-structures.
>> For instance it is possible to have different values in points and doc
>> values under the same field name. Until now, we worked around it either by
>> making features use a single data-structure, e.g. facets only use doc
>> values, or by pushing the responsibility of having consistent data across
>> data-structures to the user, e.g. IndexOrDocValuesQuery requires that the
>> point query and the doc-value query match the same documents and it's the
>> responsibility of the user to ensure this.
>> >
>> > I'm unhappy that it makes Lucene very hard to use. Creating an
>> efficient range query should be a one-liner, but due to this limitation,
>> users have to first learn about LongPointQuery#newRangeQuery,
>> NumericDocValuesField#newSlowRangeQuery and then combine them with
>> IndexOrDocValuesQuery or maybe even
>> IndexSortSortedNumericDocValuesRangeQuery. If Lucene had a requirement that
>> if a field both has points and numeric doc values then both data-structurs
>> contain the same content, then we could automatically use the
>> IndexOrDocValuesQuery optimization in LongPoint#newRangeQuery when noticing
>> that the field also has doc values of type NUMERIC or SORTED_NUMERIC.
>> >
>> > This question is being raised again as we are working on dynamically
>> pruning uncompetitive hits when sorting by field by leveraging the points
>> index.[1] This can produce very significant speedups but again requires
>> that the same data be indexed in points and doc values.
>> >
>> > [1] https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/1351
>> >
>> > We had discussions about adding a notion of schema of Lucene in the
>> past, see e.g. [2]. This seems desirable to me but also a high hanging
>> fruit and possibly controversial, so my short term proposal would instead
>> be to:
>> >  - Require documents to be consistent in the data-structures that they
>> use: you can't have one document using only points on a document and
>> another document using only doc values on another document. Of course it
>> would still be possible to index documents that have neither points nor doc
>> values indexed even if previous documents had either enabled in order to
>> handle documents with missing values properly.
>> >  - Don't hesitate to rely on consistency across fields when
>> implementing new functionality, ie. LongPoint#newRangeQuery would check
>> whether the FieldInfo has numeric doc values, and if so would automatically
>> enable the IndexOrDocValuesQuery and
>> IndexSortSortedNumericDocValuesRangeQuery optimizations.
>> >
>> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6005
>> >
>> > Checking that documents have the same values sounds desirable to me but
>> also challenging due to how we sometimes encode data on top of the Lucene
>> APIs, e.g. longs become byte[] in the points index, 

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 7.7.3 RC1

[Andrzej Białecki]

Hi,

I’m getting the following error, looks like the checksum doesn’t match the file:

Test Solr...
  test basics...
  check changes HTML...
  download solr-7.7.3-src.tgz...
56.9 MB in 586.29 sec (0.1 MB/sec)
verify sha512 digest
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1518, in 
main()
  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1448, in main
smokeTest(c.java, c.url, c.revision, c.version, c.tmp_dir, c.is_signed, 
c.local_keys, ' '.join(c.test_args))
  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1504, in smokeTest
checkSigs('solr', solrPath, version, tmpDir, isSigned, keysFile)
  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 366, in checkSigs
verifyDigests(artifact, urlString, tmpDir)
  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 556, in verifyDigests
raise RuntimeError('SHA512 digest mismatch for %s: expected %s but got %s' 
% (artifact, sha512Expected, sha512Actual))
RuntimeError: SHA512 digest mismatch for solr-7.7.3-src.tgz: expected 
549ab2c35ecfba4610921f0951b3b78595da2bcb6e36da2f2a06828a64a01e656c8d424b4ba8d559b638ab62d871827f004f5f02b8e1eed3b9a0e0cbfd31e8ac
 but got 
57a34207b6c742eae42cf5a0a15eb773d545902314c593c6f10794e6854e2c9ea6b252e9761da9ed5e13915882d6eddba87971495ff88c2cb643f523b6aaff77



> On 21 Apr 2020, at 11:36, Noble Paul  wrote:
> 
> sorry, the direct command is
> 
> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85/
> 
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:15 PM Noble Paul  wrote:
>> 
>> Please vote for release candidate ? for Lucene/Solr 7.7.3
>> 
>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
>> 
>> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
>> 
>> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>> /tmp/releases/7.7.3/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
>> 
>> 
>> Here's my +1
>> 
>> SUCCESS! [1:48:02.520060]
>> 
>> --
>> -
>> Noble Paul
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -
> Noble Paul
> 
> -
> 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

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 7.7.3 RC1

[Noble Paul]

sorry, the direct command is

python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85/

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:15 PM Noble Paul  wrote:
>
> Please vote for release candidate ? for Lucene/Solr 7.7.3
>
> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
>
> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
>
> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> /tmp/releases/7.7.3/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85
>
>
> Here's my +1
>
> SUCCESS! [1:48:02.520060]
>
> --
> -
> Noble Paul



-- 
-
Noble Paul

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 8.5.1 bugfix release

[Adrien Grand]

I just disabled the Apache Jenkins builds for 8.5.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:04 PM Adrien Grand  wrote:

> Solr doesn't use addIndexes(Directory) so this is not relevant to Solr
> indeed.
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:40 AM Ignacio Vera  wrote:
>
>> I updated the Solr's release announcement so there is no changes. I think
>> the Lucene's bug fix is not relevant for Solr.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:23 AM Jan Høydahl 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If RC1 is released with a non-working SOLR-14359, then please change
>>> Solr’s release announcement. Not sure whether the Lucene-bugfix is valid
>>> for Solr users, in that case it can be highlighted instead?
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>> 7. apr. 2020 kl. 10:13 skrev Ignacio Vera :
>>>
>>> Here are the drafts for the release notes, let me know if there is
>>> something you wish to change:
>>>
>>> Lucene:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/resumedraft.action?draftId=148645634=e835ddb5-3bb9-4b33-b6ad-1770e0a95327=shareui=1586247034772
>>>
>>> Solr:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/resumedraft.action?draftId=148645636=c4a8eb5f-08d0-40db-a877-b94adb383061=shareui=1586247001694
>>>
>>> As I reminder I am planning to build the first RC tomorrow, Wednesday
>>> April 8th.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:37 AM Ignacio Vera  wrote:
>>>
  Thanks Jan,  I see SOLR-14359
  has already
 been back ported to branch 8.5, I am ok with  SOLR-14317
  backporting as
 well. I am planning to build the first RC this coming Wednesday. Let me
 know if that works for you.



 On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 12:25 AM Jan Høydahl 
 wrote:

> Also this coould be a backport candidate: SOLR-14317
>  
> HttpClusterStateProvider
> throws exception when only one node down
>
> Jan
>
> 3. apr. 2020 kl. 22:29 skrev Jan Høydahl :
>
> I plan to merge this to branch_8_5
>
>*SOLR-14359
>  Admin UI has "Select an
> option" for collections and cores drop-downs*
>
> Jan
>
> 3. apr. 2020 kl. 14:15 skrev jim ferenczi :
>
> +1, thanks Ignacio.
> I merged the fix for LUCENE-9300
>  and backported to
> the 8.5 branch.
>
> Le jeu. 2 avr. 2020 à 21:48, Adrien Grand  a
> écrit :
>
>> My general take on this is that it's ok to upgrade a dependency in a
>> patch release if the dependency upgrade itself is a new patch release of
>> the same minor version. The changelog of Tika 1.24 seems to include not
>> only bug fixes but also some enhancements[1], so I'd rather do a 8.6
>> release in the near future than backport this dependency upgrade to 8.5.
>>
>> [1] https://tika.apache.org/1.24/index.html
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:33 PM Cassandra Targett <
>> casstarg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Should we consider backporting SOLR-14367 (the most recent Tika
>>> upgrade)? It addresses a CVE in Tika, and while I think we usually avoid
>>> changing 3rd party component versions in patch releases, but maybe we
>>> should in this case? The upgrade also looks like it was pretty
>>> straightforward (drop-in replacement).
>>>
>>> Cassandra
>>> On Apr 2, 2020, 12:47 PM -0500, Ignacio Vera ,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I propose a quick 8.5.1 bugfix release and I volunteer as RM. The
>>> main motivation for this release is LUCENE-9300 where Jim addressed a
>>> serious bug that can lead to data corruption when merging indices via
>>> IW#addIndices.
>>>
>>> If there are no objections I am planning to create a RC early next
>>> week.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Ignacio
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Adrien
>>
>
>
>
>>>
>
> --
> Adrien
>


-- 
Adrien

Re: 7.7.3 bugfix release

[Adrien Grand]

FYI I just re-enabled 7.7 builds on the Apache Jenkins.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:17 PM jim ferenczi 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Ì merged LUCENE-9300  in
> the 7.7 branch.
>
> > I shall cut the branch in a day or two
>
> I guess you meant create the first BC since the branch is already created
> (branch_7_7) ;)
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
>
> Le mer. 15 avr. 2020 à 09:21, Noble Paul  a écrit :
>
>> Hi, Please merge all the required changes to the branch branch_7_7
>>
>> I shall cut the branch in a day or two
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:14 PM jim ferenczi 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Paul,
>> > Ignacio have started the release process for a bug fix release of 8.5.1
>> last week.
>> > We cannot have two releases at the same time so would you agree to
>> start 7.7.3 after 8.5.1 is out ?
>> > I'd also like to backport LUCENE-9300 in 7.7 (the reason why we started
>> a. 8.5.1 release) so don't hesitate if you need help or to delegate the
>> release if you don't have the time at the moment.
>> >
>> > - Jim
>> >
>> >
>> > Le mar. 18 févr. 2020 à 18:35, Houston Putman 
>> a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> I've backported SOLR-13v69. After you add in SOLR-14013 Noble, we
>> should be good to go with 7.7.3 I think.
>> >>
>> >> - Houston
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 1:17 PM Jan Høydahl 
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Falde alarm, I needed to update my branch :)
>> >>>
>> >>> Jan Høydahl
>> >>>
>> >>> 14. feb. 2020 kl. 19:11 skrev Jan Høydahl :
>> >>>
>> >>> What commit hash is the backport of SOLR-13971? I cannot find it and
>> there is no CHANGES entry…?
>> >>>
>> >>> 14. feb. 2020 kl. 17:52 skrev Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com>:
>> >>>
>> >>> +1, Houston. That's my understanding as well. Please go ahead with
>> the backport.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, 14 Feb, 2020, 9:02 PM Houston Putman, <
>> houstonput...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>  It looks like CVE-2019-17558 / SOLR-13971 has already been taken
>> care of:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13971?focusedCommentId=17014356=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17014356
>> 
>>  So now CVE-2019-0193 / SOLR-13669 should be the only blocker. By the
>> description in the JIRA, it looks like backporting
>> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/commit/025f8763549151397284af28091cfd360307baa2
>> should be enough. Is this correct, or am I missing something?
>> 
>>  - HOuston
>> 
>>  On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:59 PM Jan Høydahl 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>  I’m afraid I don’t have the bandwidth the next couple of weeks.
>> 
>>  Jan Høydahl
>> 
>>  > 13. feb. 2020 kl. 16:27 skrev Noble Paul :
>>  >
>>  > Do you wish to backport them?
>>  >
>>  >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 7:55 PM Jan Høydahl <
>> jan@cominvent.com> wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >> According to NVD, there are at least two published CVEs that
>> affects 7.7.2 (CVE-2019-17558 / SOLR-13971 and CVE-2019-0193 / SOLR-13669).
>> We cannot release 7.7.3 with these still present.
>>  >>
>>  >> Jan
>>  >>
>>  >> 13. feb. 2020 kl. 06:42 skrev Noble Paul :
>>  >>
>>  >> I'm planning to back port  SOLR-14013 and do a bug fix release
>> soon.
>>  >> Please let me know if there is anything hat you wish to be
>> included
>>  >>
>>  >> --
>>  >> -
>>  >> Noble Paul
>>  >>
>>  >>
>> -
>>  >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>  >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > --
>>  > -
>>  > Noble Paul
>>  >
>>  >
>> -
>>  > To unsubscribe, %-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
>> 
>> >>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -
>> Noble Paul
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>

-- 
Adrien

[VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 7.7.3 RC1

[Noble Paul]

Please vote for release candidate ? for Lucene/Solr 7.7.3

The artifacts can be downloaded from:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85

You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:

python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
/tmp/releases/7.7.3/lucene-solr-7.7.3-RC1-rev1a0d2a901dfec93676b0fe8be425101ceb754b85


Here's my +1

SUCCESS! [1:48:02.520060]

-- 
-
Noble Paul

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org