Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.2.0 RC1

[Tomoko Uchida]

Alan noticed a backward compatibility issue in LUCENE-10312 and I'm working
on it.
I think respin would be needed - sorry for the additional work.

Tomoko


2022年5月19日(木) 9:02 Patrick Zhai :

> +1 SUCCESS! [1:12:17.482213]
>
> Thank you Alan!
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 4:31 PM Julie Tibshirani 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 SUCCESS! [0:57:28.654665]
>>
>> Thanks Alan!
>>
>> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 1:51 PM Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 SUCCESS! [0:59:19.002348]
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 5:59 AM Alan Woodward 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.2.0

 The artifacts can be downloaded from:

 https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0

 You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:

 python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py \

 https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0

 Given that we have a weekend coming up, the vote will be open for at
 least 5 days i.e. until 2022-05-23 13:00 UTC.

 [ ] +1  approve
 [ ] +0  no opinion
 [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

 Here is my +1
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org


>>>
>>> --
>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.2.0 RC1

[Patrick Zhai]

+1 SUCCESS! [1:12:17.482213]

Thank you Alan!

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 4:31 PM Julie Tibshirani 
wrote:

> +1 SUCCESS! [0:57:28.654665]
>
> Thanks Alan!
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 1:51 PM Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 SUCCESS! [0:59:19.002348]
>>
>> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 5:59 AM Alan Woodward 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.2.0
>>>
>>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>>>
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
>>>
>>> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
>>>
>>> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py \
>>>
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
>>>
>>> Given that we have a weekend coming up, the vote will be open for at
>>> least 5 days i.e. until 2022-05-23 13:00 UTC.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1  approve
>>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>>
>>> Here is my +1
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.2.0 RC1

[Julie Tibshirani]

+1 SUCCESS! [0:57:28.654665]

Thanks Alan!

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 1:51 PM Anshum Gupta  wrote:

> +1 SUCCESS! [0:59:19.002348]
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 5:59 AM Alan Woodward 
> wrote:
>
>> Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.2.0
>>
>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
>>
>> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
>>
>> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py \
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
>>
>> Given that we have a weekend coming up, the vote will be open for at
>> least 5 days i.e. until 2022-05-23 13:00 UTC.
>>
>> [ ] +1  approve
>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>> Here is my +1
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>

Re: How to see test case logs in Intellij

[Mikhail Khludnev]

Hi, Shah.
I guess I see something like this recently. When I run Lucene test in
intellyJ via gradle, debug view has two tabs: TestFooBar, :test.
Stack and variables are shown in latter one but console output is shown in
the former one.

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 9:27 PM Rushabh Shah
 wrote:

> Hi Lucene devs,
> I am pretty new to the Lucene project and to the Gradle build tool also.
> When I run any test case via Intellij, I am not able to see any logs
> related to that test case. Do I need to set some special property in some
> config file to view the logs ? Please help. Thank you.
>
>
> Rushabh Shah
>


-- 
Sincerely yours
Mikhail Khludnev

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.2.0 RC1

[Anshum Gupta]

+1 SUCCESS! [0:59:19.002348]

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 5:59 AM Alan Woodward  wrote:

> Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.2.0
>
> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
>
> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
>
> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py \
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
>
> Given that we have a weekend coming up, the vote will be open for at least
> 5 days i.e. until 2022-05-23 13:00 UTC.
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here is my +1
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.2.0 RC1

[Michael Sokolov]

+1 SUCCESS! [0:43:09.481661]

I'm not going to get hung up on an issue with the smokeTester if
Robert's not :) BTW thank you for running on slow machine that takes
many hours!

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 3:48 PM Robert Muir  wrote:
>
> I opened issue about this. It shouldn't block the release, but it is
> pretty crazy and something to improve.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10579
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 3:10 PM Robert Muir  wrote:
> >
> > It seems strange the way that
> > confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat() parses the output of the
> > test's results, especially with test.verbose enabled.
> > It uses regex to "look" for certain prints from the test in order to
> > "see" that each release is tested.
> > Maybe regex failed because something randomly got printed to stdout at
> > that time (its passing tests.verbose, could be anything)?
> > Would it be better to just inspect the backward_index folder and look
> > at the .zip filenames?
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 2:54 PM Robert Muir  wrote:
> > >
> > > The smoketester failed for me. Strange that it didn't fail for anyone
> > > else. My command line:
> > >
> > > $ export JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk/
> > > $ python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py --test-java17
> > > /home/rmuir/Downloads/jdk
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
> > >
> > > (after many hours)...
> > >
> > >   confirm all releases have coverage in TestBackwardsCompatibility
> > > find all past Lucene releases...
> > > run TestBackwardsCompatibility..
> > > Releases that don't seem to be tested:
> > >   8.6.1
> > > Traceback (most recent call last):
> > >   File 
> > > "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> > > line 1188, in 
> > > main()
> > >   File 
> > > "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> > > line 1122, 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 
> > > "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> > > line 1176, in smokeTest
> > > unpackAndVerify(java, tmpDir, 'lucene-%s-src.tgz' % version,
> > > gitRevision, version, testArgs)
> > >   File 
> > > "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> > > line 524, in unpackAndVerify
> > > verifyUnpacked(java, artifact, unpackPath, gitRevision, version, 
> > > testArgs)
> > >   File 
> > > "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> > > line 629, in verifyUnpacked
> > > confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat(version, unpackPath)
> > >   File 
> > > "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> > > line 1108, in confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat
> > > raise RuntimeError('some releases are not tested by
> > > TestBackwardsCompatibility?')
> > > RuntimeError: some releases are not tested by TestBackwardsCompatibility?
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:54 AM Michael McCandless
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > SUCCESS! [0:35:17.914586]
> > > >
> > > > Mike McCandless
> > > >
> > > > http://blog.mikemccandless.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 8:59 AM Alan Woodward  
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.2.0
> > > >>
> > > >> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
> > > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
> > > >>
> > > >> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
> > > >>
> > > >> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py \
> > > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
> > > >>
> > > >> Given that we have a weekend coming up, the vote will be open for at 
> > > >> least 5 days i.e. until 2022-05-23 13:00 UTC.
> > > >>
> > > >> [ ] +1  approve
> > > >> [ ] +0  no opinion
> > > >> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
> > > >>
> > > >> Here is my +1
> > > >> -
> > > >> 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: How to see test case logs in Intellij

[Dawid Weiss]

Also, IntelliJ can run tests in two modes - via gradle or directly. If
you switch to direct mode, the logs should be printed without any
additional properties.

Dawid

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 8:53 PM Robert Muir  wrote:
>
> Tests generally don't print or log anything.
>
> If you want them to print tons of stuff, pass -Ptests.verbose=true to gradle.
> You can do it in idea IDE by going to "Run" menu, "Edit
> Configurations", and adding -Ptests.verbose=true to the command line
> of the particular test (e.g. TestDemo)
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 2:28 PM Rushabh Shah
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Lucene devs,
> > I am pretty new to the Lucene project and to the Gradle build tool also. 
> > When I run any test case via Intellij, I am not able to see any logs 
> > related to that test case. Do I need to set some special property in some 
> > config file to view the logs ? Please help. Thank you.
> >
> >
> > Rushabh Shah
>
> -
> 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: How to see test case logs in Intellij

[Rushabh Shah]

Thank you Robert !


Rushabh Shah


On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 11:52 AM Robert Muir  wrote:

> Tests generally don't print or log anything.
>
> If you want them to print tons of stuff, pass -Ptests.verbose=true to
> gradle.
> You can do it in idea IDE by going to "Run" menu, "Edit
> Configurations", and adding -Ptests.verbose=true to the command line
> of the particular test (e.g. TestDemo)
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 2:28 PM Rushabh Shah
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Lucene devs,
> > I am pretty new to the Lucene project and to the Gradle build tool also.
> When I run any test case via Intellij, I am not able to see any logs
> related to that test case. Do I need to set some special property in some
> config file to view the logs ? Please help. Thank you.
> >
> >
> > Rushabh Shah
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.2.0 RC1

[Robert Muir]

I opened issue about this. It shouldn't block the release, but it is
pretty crazy and something to improve.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10579

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 3:10 PM Robert Muir  wrote:
>
> It seems strange the way that
> confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat() parses the output of the
> test's results, especially with test.verbose enabled.
> It uses regex to "look" for certain prints from the test in order to
> "see" that each release is tested.
> Maybe regex failed because something randomly got printed to stdout at
> that time (its passing tests.verbose, could be anything)?
> Would it be better to just inspect the backward_index folder and look
> at the .zip filenames?
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 2:54 PM Robert Muir  wrote:
> >
> > The smoketester failed for me. Strange that it didn't fail for anyone
> > else. My command line:
> >
> > $ export JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk/
> > $ python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py --test-java17
> > /home/rmuir/Downloads/jdk
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
> >
> > (after many hours)...
> >
> >   confirm all releases have coverage in TestBackwardsCompatibility
> > find all past Lucene releases...
> > run TestBackwardsCompatibility..
> > Releases that don't seem to be tested:
> >   8.6.1
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> >   File "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> > line 1188, in 
> > main()
> >   File "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> > line 1122, 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 "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> > line 1176, in smokeTest
> > unpackAndVerify(java, tmpDir, 'lucene-%s-src.tgz' % version,
> > gitRevision, version, testArgs)
> >   File "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> > line 524, in unpackAndVerify
> > verifyUnpacked(java, artifact, unpackPath, gitRevision, version, 
> > testArgs)
> >   File "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> > line 629, in verifyUnpacked
> > confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat(version, unpackPath)
> >   File "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> > line 1108, in confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat
> > raise RuntimeError('some releases are not tested by
> > TestBackwardsCompatibility?')
> > RuntimeError: some releases are not tested by TestBackwardsCompatibility?
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:54 AM Michael McCandless
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > SUCCESS! [0:35:17.914586]
> > >
> > > Mike McCandless
> > >
> > > http://blog.mikemccandless.com
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 8:59 AM Alan Woodward  
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.2.0
> > >>
> > >> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
> > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
> > >>
> > >> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
> > >>
> > >> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py \
> > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
> > >>
> > >> Given that we have a weekend coming up, the vote will be open for at 
> > >> least 5 days i.e. until 2022-05-23 13:00 UTC.
> > >>
> > >> [ ] +1  approve
> > >> [ ] +0  no opinion
> > >> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
> > >>
> > >> Here is my +1
> > >> -
> > >> 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 9.2.0 RC1

[Robert Muir]

It seems strange the way that
confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat() parses the output of the
test's results, especially with test.verbose enabled.
It uses regex to "look" for certain prints from the test in order to
"see" that each release is tested.
Maybe regex failed because something randomly got printed to stdout at
that time (its passing tests.verbose, could be anything)?
Would it be better to just inspect the backward_index folder and look
at the .zip filenames?

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 2:54 PM Robert Muir  wrote:
>
> The smoketester failed for me. Strange that it didn't fail for anyone
> else. My command line:
>
> $ export JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk/
> $ python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py --test-java17
> /home/rmuir/Downloads/jdk
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
>
> (after many hours)...
>
>   confirm all releases have coverage in TestBackwardsCompatibility
> find all past Lucene releases...
> run TestBackwardsCompatibility..
> Releases that don't seem to be tested:
>   8.6.1
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> line 1188, in 
> main()
>   File "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> line 1122, 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 "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> line 1176, in smokeTest
> unpackAndVerify(java, tmpDir, 'lucene-%s-src.tgz' % version,
> gitRevision, version, testArgs)
>   File "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> line 524, in unpackAndVerify
> verifyUnpacked(java, artifact, unpackPath, gitRevision, version, testArgs)
>   File "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> line 629, in verifyUnpacked
> confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat(version, unpackPath)
>   File "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
> line 1108, in confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat
> raise RuntimeError('some releases are not tested by
> TestBackwardsCompatibility?')
> RuntimeError: some releases are not tested by TestBackwardsCompatibility?
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:54 AM Michael McCandless
>  wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > SUCCESS! [0:35:17.914586]
> >
> > Mike McCandless
> >
> > http://blog.mikemccandless.com
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 8:59 AM Alan Woodward  wrote:
> >>
> >> Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.2.0
> >>
> >> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
> >>
> >> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
> >>
> >> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py \
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
> >>
> >> Given that we have a weekend coming up, the vote will be open for at least 
> >> 5 days i.e. until 2022-05-23 13:00 UTC.
> >>
> >> [ ] +1  approve
> >> [ ] +0  no opinion
> >> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
> >>
> >> Here is my +1
> >> -
> >> 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 9.2.0 RC1

[Robert Muir]

The smoketester failed for me. Strange that it didn't fail for anyone
else. My command line:

$ export JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk/
$ python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py --test-java17
/home/rmuir/Downloads/jdk
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0

(after many hours)...

  confirm all releases have coverage in TestBackwardsCompatibility
find all past Lucene releases...
run TestBackwardsCompatibility..
Releases that don't seem to be tested:
  8.6.1
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
line 1188, in 
main()
  File "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
line 1122, 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 "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
line 1176, in smokeTest
unpackAndVerify(java, tmpDir, 'lucene-%s-src.tgz' % version,
gitRevision, version, testArgs)
  File "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
line 524, in unpackAndVerify
verifyUnpacked(java, artifact, unpackPath, gitRevision, version, testArgs)
  File "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
line 629, in verifyUnpacked
confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat(version, unpackPath)
  File "/home/rmuir/workspace/lucene/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py",
line 1108, in confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat
raise RuntimeError('some releases are not tested by
TestBackwardsCompatibility?')
RuntimeError: some releases are not tested by TestBackwardsCompatibility?

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:54 AM Michael McCandless
 wrote:
>
> +1
>
> SUCCESS! [0:35:17.914586]
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 8:59 AM Alan Woodward  wrote:
>>
>> Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.2.0
>>
>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
>>
>> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
>>
>> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py \
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
>>
>> Given that we have a weekend coming up, the vote will be open for at least 5 
>> days i.e. until 2022-05-23 13:00 UTC.
>>
>> [ ] +1  approve
>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>> Here is my +1
>> -
>> 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: How to see test case logs in Intellij

[Robert Muir]

Tests generally don't print or log anything.

If you want them to print tons of stuff, pass -Ptests.verbose=true to gradle.
You can do it in idea IDE by going to "Run" menu, "Edit
Configurations", and adding -Ptests.verbose=true to the command line
of the particular test (e.g. TestDemo)

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 2:28 PM Rushabh Shah
 wrote:
>
> Hi Lucene devs,
> I am pretty new to the Lucene project and to the Gradle build tool also. When 
> I run any test case via Intellij, I am not able to see any logs related to 
> that test case. Do I need to set some special property in some config file to 
> view the logs ? Please help. Thank you.
>
>
> Rushabh Shah

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

How to see test case logs in Intellij

[Rushabh Shah]

Hi Lucene devs,
I am pretty new to the Lucene project and to the Gradle build tool also.
When I run any test case via Intellij, I am not able to see any logs
related to that test case. Do I need to set some special property in some
config file to view the logs ? Please help. Thank you.


Rushabh Shah

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.2.0 RC1

[Michael McCandless]

+1

SUCCESS! [0:35:17.914586]

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com


On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 8:59 AM Alan Woodward  wrote:

> Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.2.0
>
> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
>
> You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:
>
> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py \
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0
>
> Given that we have a weekend coming up, the vote will be open for at least
> 5 days i.e. until 2022-05-23 13:00 UTC.
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here is my +1
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Re: Bugfix release Lucene/Solr 8.11.2

[Gus Heck]

SOLR-16194 is in and ported to 8.11,.2

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 7:12 AM Jan Høydahl  wrote:

> I was pinged on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-16019 because
> I have an in-flight PR with a backport. I'll complete and merge that PR.
>
> Jan
>
>
> 13. mai 2022 kl. 01:03 skrev Mike Drob :
>
> To: dev@lucene, dev@solr
>
> NOTICE:
>
> I am planning on preparing a bugfix release from branch branch_8_11
> (likely mid next week)
>
> Please observe the normal rules for committing to this branch:
>
> * Before committing to the branch, reply to this thread and argue
>   why the fix needs backporting and how long it will take.
> ** If you're backporting stuff this week still or over the weekend, then
> skip
> the bit about how long it will take.
> * All issues accepted for backporting should be marked with 8.11.2
>   in JIRA, and issues that should delay the release must be marked as
> Blocker
> * 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.
> * Only Jira issues with Fix version 8.11.2 and priority "Blocker" will
> delay
>   a release candidate build.
>
> Also, please observe that since 9.0 already exists, there cannot be any
> index format breaking changes. It really should only be bug fixes that have
> already been verified on the 9x branch.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
>
>

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

[VOTE] Release Lucene 9.2.0 RC1

[Alan Woodward]

Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.2.0

The artifacts can be downloaded from:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0

You can run the smoke tester directly with this command:

python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py \
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.2.0-RC1-rev-978eef5459c7683038ddcca4ec56e4baa63715d0

Given that we have a weekend coming up, the vote will be open for at least 5 
days i.e. until 2022-05-23 13:00 UTC.

[ ] +1  approve
[ ] +0  no opinion
[ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

Here is my +1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Bugfix release Lucene/Solr 8.11.2

[Jan Høydahl]

I was pinged on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-16019 
 because I have an in-flight 
PR with a backport. I'll complete and merge that PR.

Jan


> 13. mai 2022 kl. 01:03 skrev Mike Drob :
> 
> To: dev@lucene, dev@solr
> 
> NOTICE:
> 
> I am planning on preparing a bugfix release from branch branch_8_11 (likely 
> mid next week)
> 
> Please observe the normal rules for committing to this branch:
> 
> * Before committing to the branch, reply to this thread and argue
>   why the fix needs backporting and how long it will take.
> ** If you're backporting stuff this week still or over the weekend, then skip
> the bit about how long it will take.
> * All issues accepted for backporting should be marked with 8.11.2
>   in JIRA, and issues that should delay the release must be marked as Blocker
> * 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.
> * Only Jira issues with Fix version 8.11.2 and priority "Blocker" will delay
>   a release candidate build.
> 
> Also, please observe that since 9.0 already exists, there cannot be any index 
> format breaking changes. It really should only be bug fixes that have already 
> been verified on the 9x branch.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

[Tomoko Uchida]

Hi, I just wanted to note that I opened LUCENE-10578.
Maybe it'd be worth having the discussion in Jira?


2022年5月18日(水) 18:31 Alan Woodward :

> I think this release is the first time I’ve used Java 11 since 2019, yes!
>
> I’ll get the latest AdoptOpenJDK version and try and persuade my Mac to
> use it...
>
> > On 18 May 2022, at 10:19, Dawid Weiss  wrote:
> >
> > Living in the past, aren't we? :)
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:49 AM Alan Woodward 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> $ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-11.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java
> -version
> >>
> >> openjdk version "11" 2018-09-25
> >> OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11+28)
> >> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11+28, mixed mode)
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 18 May 2022, at 09:35, Dawid Weiss  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Alan, what's the exact JDK vendor/ release number you used that had
> >>> this problem? If we can reproduce it then we'd know where to look
> >>> (bisect until we know javadoc works correctly).
> >>>
> >>> D.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:33 AM Dawid Weiss 
> wrote:
> 
> > I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still
> here... should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry
> here is, that minor versions could depend on the distributor.
> 
>  This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify
>  which version numbers are used by packaging openjdk for various
>  releases. Realistically, the JDK part (standard library) is nearly the
>  same in all/ most of them? The least that could be done is to apply
>  the restriction to just a particular vendor/ release and emit a
>  warning for unrecognized ones.
> 
>  Dawid
> >>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

[Alan Woodward]

I think this release is the first time I’ve used Java 11 since 2019, yes!

I’ll get the latest AdoptOpenJDK version and try and persuade my Mac to use 
it...

> On 18 May 2022, at 10:19, Dawid Weiss  wrote:
> 
> Living in the past, aren't we? :)
> 
> D.
> 
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:49 AM Alan Woodward  wrote:
>> 
>> $ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-11.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java 
>> -version
>> 
>> openjdk version "11" 2018-09-25
>> OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11+28)
>> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11+28, mixed mode)
>> 
>> 
>>> On 18 May 2022, at 09:35, Dawid Weiss  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Alan, what's the exact JDK vendor/ release number you used that had
>>> this problem? If we can reproduce it then we'd know where to look
>>> (bisect until we know javadoc works correctly).
>>> 
>>> D.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:33 AM Dawid Weiss  wrote:
 
> I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still 
> here... should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry 
> here is, that minor versions could depend on the distributor.
 
 This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify
 which version numbers are used by packaging openjdk for various
 releases. Realistically, the JDK part (standard library) is nearly the
 same in all/ most of them? The least that could be done is to apply
 the restriction to just a particular vendor/ release and emit a
 warning for unrecognized ones.
 
 Dawid
>> 


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

RE: Lucene 9.2 release

[Uwe Schindler]

Ah to add: OpenJDK releases do not vary between each other. The bugfix
version numbers should be aligned.

It may only happen that a specific vendor patches more security fixes in or
adds optional features (like the Temurin ones have Shenandoah GC, Oracle's
not).

The tools like javac or javadoc get bugfixes, but those are common to all
vendors.

Uwe

-
Uwe Schindler
Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
https://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de

> -Original Message-
> From: Uwe Schindler 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 11:21 AM
> To: 'dev@lucene.apache.org' 
> Subject: RE: Lucene 9.2 release
> 
> Hi Alan,
> 
> I know the probem: This is the JDK 11 General Availability release (the
first one
> that came out) and it is buggy to hell (also Lucene crashes hotspot with
that
> one). This also has known issues with javadocs which were fixed in later
bugfix
> versions.
> 
> I think what you should do: Go To Eclipse Temurin / Adoptopen-JDK and
> download the latest OpenJDK 11.0.15 release.
> 
> We could maybe add some checks in the Gradle Build using
> java.lang.System.Version.current() class and check major/minor version for
> minimum requirements.
> 
> Uwe
> 
> -
> Uwe Schindler
> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
> https://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Alan Woodward 
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 10:49 AM
> > To: Dawid Weiss ; dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene 9.2 release
> >
> > $ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-11.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java -
> > version
> >
> > openjdk version "11" 2018-09-25
> > OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11+28)
> > OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11+28, mixed mode)
> >
> >
> > > On 18 May 2022, at 09:35, Dawid Weiss  wrote:
> > >
> > > Alan, what's the exact JDK vendor/ release number you used that had
> > > this problem? If we can reproduce it then we'd know where to look
> > > (bisect until we know javadoc works correctly).
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:33 AM Dawid Weiss
> 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still
here...
> > should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry here
is,
> that
> > minor versions could depend on the distributor.
> > >>
> > >> This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify
> > >> which version numbers are used by packaging openjdk for various
> > >> releases. Realistically, the JDK part (standard library) is nearly
the
> > >> same in all/ most of them? The least that could be done is to apply
> > >> the restriction to just a particular vendor/ release and emit a
> > >> warning for unrecognized ones.
> > >>
> > >> Dawid
> >
> >
> > -
> > 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: Lucene 9.2 release

[Uwe Schindler]

Hi Alan,

I know the probem: This is the JDK 11 General Availability release (the
first one that came out) and it is buggy to hell (also Lucene crashes
hotspot with that one). This also has known issues with javadocs which were
fixed in later bugfix versions.

I think what you should do: Go To Eclipse Temurin / Adoptopen-JDK and
download the latest OpenJDK 11.0.15 release.

We could maybe add some checks in the Gradle Build using
java.lang.System.Version.current() class and check major/minor version for
minimum requirements.

Uwe

-
Uwe Schindler
Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
https://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de

> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Woodward 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 10:49 AM
> To: Dawid Weiss ; dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene 9.2 release
> 
> $ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-11.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java -
> version
> 
> openjdk version "11" 2018-09-25
> OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11+28)
> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11+28, mixed mode)
> 
> 
> > On 18 May 2022, at 09:35, Dawid Weiss  wrote:
> >
> > Alan, what's the exact JDK vendor/ release number you used that had
> > this problem? If we can reproduce it then we'd know where to look
> > (bisect until we know javadoc works correctly).
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:33 AM Dawid Weiss 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still
here...
> should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry here is,
that
> minor versions could depend on the distributor.
> >>
> >> This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify
> >> which version numbers are used by packaging openjdk for various
> >> releases. Realistically, the JDK part (standard library) is nearly the
> >> same in all/ most of them? The least that could be done is to apply
> >> the restriction to just a particular vendor/ release and emit a
> >> warning for unrecognized ones.
> >>
> >> Dawid
> 
> 
> -
> 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: Lucene 9.2 release

[Dawid Weiss]

Living in the past, aren't we? :)

D.

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:49 AM Alan Woodward  wrote:
>
> $ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-11.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java -version
>
> openjdk version "11" 2018-09-25
> OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11+28)
> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11+28, mixed mode)
>
>
> > On 18 May 2022, at 09:35, Dawid Weiss  wrote:
> >
> > Alan, what's the exact JDK vendor/ release number you used that had
> > this problem? If we can reproduce it then we'd know where to look
> > (bisect until we know javadoc works correctly).
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:33 AM Dawid Weiss  wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still 
> >>> here... should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry 
> >>> here is, that minor versions could depend on the distributor.
> >>
> >> This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify
> >> which version numbers are used by packaging openjdk for various
> >> releases. Realistically, the JDK part (standard library) is nearly the
> >> same in all/ most of them? The least that could be done is to apply
> >> the restriction to just a particular vendor/ release and emit a
> >> warning for unrecognized ones.
> >>
> >> Dawid
>

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

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

[Alan Woodward]

$ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-11.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java -version

openjdk version "11" 2018-09-25
OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11+28)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11+28, mixed mode)


> On 18 May 2022, at 09:35, Dawid Weiss  wrote:
> 
> Alan, what's the exact JDK vendor/ release number you used that had
> this problem? If we can reproduce it then we'd know where to look
> (bisect until we know javadoc works correctly).
> 
> D.
> 
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:33 AM Dawid Weiss  wrote:
>> 
>>> I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still here... 
>>> should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry here is, 
>>> that minor versions could depend on the distributor.
>> 
>> This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify
>> which version numbers are used by packaging openjdk for various
>> releases. Realistically, the JDK part (standard library) is nearly the
>> same in all/ most of them? The least that could be done is to apply
>> the restriction to just a particular vendor/ release and emit a
>> warning for unrecognized ones.
>> 
>> Dawid


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

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

[Dawid Weiss]

Alan, what's the exact JDK vendor/ release number you used that had
this problem? If we can reproduce it then we'd know where to look
(bisect until we know javadoc works correctly).

D.

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:33 AM Dawid Weiss  wrote:
>
> > I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still here... 
> > should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry here is, 
> > that minor versions could depend on the distributor.
>
> This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify
> which version numbers are used by packaging openjdk for various
> releases. Realistically, the JDK part (standard library) is nearly the
> same in all/ most of them? The least that could be done is to apply
> the restriction to just a particular vendor/ release and emit a
> warning for unrecognized ones.
>
> Dawid

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

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

[Dawid Weiss]

> I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still here... 
> should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry here is, 
> that minor versions could depend on the distributor.

This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify
which version numbers are used by packaging openjdk for various
releases. Realistically, the JDK part (standard library) is nearly the
same in all/ most of them? The least that could be done is to apply
the restriction to just a particular vendor/ release and emit a
warning for unrecognized ones.

Dawid

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

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

[Tomoko Uchida]

I'll take a look if I have a chance.
I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still here...
should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry here is,
that minor versions could depend on the distributor.



2022年5月18日(水) 16:10 Dawid Weiss :

> I think it makes sense to fail the build in both cases. An early
> warning to upgrade buggy old java releases...
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 9:06 AM Tomoko Uchida
>  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Dawid for the pointer.
> > If there is a distribution-agnostic and reliable minor/patch version, we
> could specify a more detailed minimum requirement version for building.
> > I think we shouldn't limit the distribution - or, we should (at least on
> making the release artifact)?
> >
> > Tomoko
> >
> >
> > 2022年5月18日(水) 15:12 Dawid Weiss :
> >>
> >> > I'd agree with this and it'd be great if we can fail to build locally
> and encourage devs to use a newer patch version of Java (instead of blaming
> developers for not upgrading jdk they use) - I have no good idea at all
> though.
> >>
> >> This should be simple. In alternative-jdk-support.gradle, check
> >> whether jvmCurrent's JvmInstallationMetadata is on JDK 11 major and if
> >> so, verify the minor to be at least at a certain bugfix release? You
> >> can parse out the minor version using Runtime.Version API [1] from one
> >> of these (not sure which one gradle extracts):
> >>
> >> String getImplementationVersion();
> >> String getRuntimeVersion();
> >> String getJvmVersion();
> >>
> >>
> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/api/java/lang/Runtime.Version.html
> >>
> >> D.
> >>
> >> -
> >> 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: Lucene 9.2 release

[Dawid Weiss]

I think it makes sense to fail the build in both cases. An early
warning to upgrade buggy old java releases...

D.

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 9:06 AM Tomoko Uchida
 wrote:
>
> Thanks, Dawid for the pointer.
> If there is a distribution-agnostic and reliable minor/patch version, we 
> could specify a more detailed minimum requirement version for building.
> I think we shouldn't limit the distribution - or, we should (at least on 
> making the release artifact)?
>
> Tomoko
>
>
> 2022年5月18日(水) 15:12 Dawid Weiss :
>>
>> > I'd agree with this and it'd be great if we can fail to build locally and 
>> > encourage devs to use a newer patch version of Java (instead of blaming 
>> > developers for not upgrading jdk they use) - I have no good idea at all 
>> > though.
>>
>> This should be simple. In alternative-jdk-support.gradle, check
>> whether jvmCurrent's JvmInstallationMetadata is on JDK 11 major and if
>> so, verify the minor to be at least at a certain bugfix release? You
>> can parse out the minor version using Runtime.Version API [1] from one
>> of these (not sure which one gradle extracts):
>>
>> String getImplementationVersion();
>> String getRuntimeVersion();
>> String getJvmVersion();
>>
>> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/api/java/lang/Runtime.Version.html
>>
>> D.
>>
>> -
>> 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: Lucene 9.2 release

[Tomoko Uchida]

Thanks, Dawid for the pointer.
If there is a distribution-agnostic and reliable minor/patch version, we
could specify a more detailed minimum requirement version for building.
I think we shouldn't limit the distribution - or, we should (at least on
making the release artifact)?

Tomoko


2022年5月18日(水) 15:12 Dawid Weiss :

> > I'd agree with this and it'd be great if we can fail to build locally
> and encourage devs to use a newer patch version of Java (instead of blaming
> developers for not upgrading jdk they use) - I have no good idea at all
> though.
>
> This should be simple. In alternative-jdk-support.gradle, check
> whether jvmCurrent's JvmInstallationMetadata is on JDK 11 major and if
> so, verify the minor to be at least at a certain bugfix release? You
> can parse out the minor version using Runtime.Version API [1] from one
> of these (not sure which one gradle extracts):
>
> String getImplementationVersion();
> String getRuntimeVersion();
> String getJvmVersion();
>
> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/api/java/lang/Runtime.Version.html
>
> D.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

[Dawid Weiss]

> I'd agree with this and it'd be great if we can fail to build locally and 
> encourage devs to use a newer patch version of Java (instead of blaming 
> developers for not upgrading jdk they use) - I have no good idea at all 
> though.

This should be simple. In alternative-jdk-support.gradle, check
whether jvmCurrent's JvmInstallationMetadata is on JDK 11 major and if
so, verify the minor to be at least at a certain bugfix release? You
can parse out the minor version using Runtime.Version API [1] from one
of these (not sure which one gradle extracts):

String getImplementationVersion();
String getRuntimeVersion();
String getJvmVersion();

https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/api/java/lang/Runtime.Version.html

D.

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