Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC2

[Shyamsunder Mutcha]

SUCCESS! [0:38:41.054860]
+1

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 9:59 PM Nhat Nguyen 
wrote:

> SUCCESS! [1:22:43.808415]
>
> +1
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 6:09 PM Christian Moen  wrote:
>
>> SUCCESS! [1:49:26.873909]
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 3:09 AM Chris Hegarty
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Please vote for release candidate 2 for Lucene 9.9.0
>>>
>>>
>>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.0-RC2-rev-06070c0dceba07f0d33104192d9ac98ca16fc500
>>>
>>>
>>> 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-9.9.0-RC2-rev-06070c0dceba07f0d33104192d9ac98ca16fc500
>>>
>>>
>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours, and given the weekend in
>>> between, let’s keep it open until 2023-12-04 12:00 UTC.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1  approve
>>>
>>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>>>
>>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is my +1
>>>
>>>
>>> -Chris.
>>>
>>>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC2

[Nhat Nguyen]

SUCCESS! [1:22:43.808415]

+1

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 6:09 PM Christian Moen  wrote:

> SUCCESS! [1:49:26.873909]
>
> +1
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 3:09 AM Chris Hegarty
>  wrote:
>
>> Please vote for release candidate 2 for Lucene 9.9.0
>>
>>
>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>>
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.0-RC2-rev-06070c0dceba07f0d33104192d9ac98ca16fc500
>>
>>
>> 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-9.9.0-RC2-rev-06070c0dceba07f0d33104192d9ac98ca16fc500
>>
>>
>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours, and given the weekend in
>> between, let’s keep it open until 2023-12-04 12:00 UTC.
>>
>> [ ] +1  approve
>>
>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>>
>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>>
>> Here is my +1
>>
>>
>> -Chris.
>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC2

[Christian Moen]

SUCCESS! [1:49:26.873909]

+1

On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 3:09 AM Chris Hegarty
 wrote:

> Please vote for release candidate 2 for Lucene 9.9.0
>
>
> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.0-RC2-rev-06070c0dceba07f0d33104192d9ac98ca16fc500
>
>
> 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-9.9.0-RC2-rev-06070c0dceba07f0d33104192d9ac98ca16fc500
>
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours, and given the weekend in
> between, let’s keep it open until 2023-12-04 12:00 UTC.
>
> [ ] +1  approve
>
> [ ] +0  no opinion
>
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
>
> Here is my +1
>
>
> -Chris.
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC2

[Michael Sokolov]

SUCCESS! [0:46:20.693134]

+1

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 5:50 PM Tomás Fernández Löbbe 
wrote:

> SUCCESS! [0:52:49.337126]
>
> +1
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:05 PM Benjamin Trent 
> wrote:
>
>> SUCCESS! [0:44:05.132154]
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 1:09 PM Chris Hegarty
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Please vote for release candidate 2 for Lucene 9.9.0
>>>
>>>
>>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.0-RC2-rev-06070c0dceba07f0d33104192d9ac98ca16fc500
>>>
>>>
>>> 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-9.9.0-RC2-rev-06070c0dceba07f0d33104192d9ac98ca16fc500
>>>
>>>
>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours, and given the weekend in
>>> between, let’s keep it open until 2023-12-04 12:00 UTC.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1  approve
>>>
>>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>>>
>>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is my +1
>>>
>>>
>>> -Chris.
>>>
>>>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC2

[Tomás Fernández Löbbe]

SUCCESS! [0:52:49.337126]

+1

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:05 PM Benjamin Trent 
wrote:

> SUCCESS! [0:44:05.132154]
>
> +1
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 1:09 PM Chris Hegarty
>  wrote:
>
>> Please vote for release candidate 2 for Lucene 9.9.0
>>
>>
>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>>
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.0-RC2-rev-06070c0dceba07f0d33104192d9ac98ca16fc500
>>
>>
>> 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-9.9.0-RC2-rev-06070c0dceba07f0d33104192d9ac98ca16fc500
>>
>>
>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours, and given the weekend in
>> between, let’s keep it open until 2023-12-04 12:00 UTC.
>>
>> [ ] +1  approve
>>
>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>>
>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>>
>> Here is my +1
>>
>>
>> -Chris.
>>
>>

Re: GitHub issues vs PRs vs Lucene's CHANGES.txt

[Luca Cavanna]

Sounds like we could automate assigning the milestone, given that it is a
commonly forgotten step, based on the section of CHANGES where the PR gets
added?

I am pretty sure that I forgot to add entries to CHANGES too. That could be
maybe suggested in github. Whenever there's a PR that does not touch the
CHANGES.txt, more often than not it's a mistake?

I am wondering if it still makes sense to  have to track changes associated
to versions in both milestones as well as the CHANGES.txt file. There is
some duplication there. Could the CHANGES file be generated from the
milestone, if it was set correctly, and the description of the change taken
from the title of the PR? Sorry if I am bringing up something that has been
discussed before.

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:03 PM Dongyu Xu  wrote:

> Hopefully this is relevant.
>
> There are useful tools like git-cliff​ for automating changelog
> generation.
>
> https://github.com/orhun/git-cliff
>
> Tony X
> --
> *From:* Michael McCandless 
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2023 4:30 AM
> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org 
> *Subject:* Re: GitHub issues vs PRs vs Lucene's CHANGES.txt
>
> Well, I created a starting tool to at least help us keep the
> what-should-be-identical-yet-is-nearly-impossible-for-us-to-achieve
> sections in CHANGES.txt in sync:
> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12860
>
> Right now it finds a number of mostly minor differences in the 9.9.0
> sections in main vs branch_9_9:
>
> NOTE: resolving branch_9_9 -->
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/lucene/branch_9_9/lucene/CHANGES.txt
> NOTE: resolving main -->
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/lucene/main/lucene/CHANGES.txt
> 15a16,18
> > * GITHUB#12646, GITHUB#12690: Move FST#addNode to FSTCompiler to avoid a
> circular dependency
> >   between FST and FSTCompiler (Anh Dung Bui)
> >
> 27,30c30
> < * GITHUB#12646, GITHUB#12690: Move FST#addNode to FSTCompiler to avoid a
> circular dependency
> <   between FST and FSTCompiler (Anh Dung Bui)
> <
> < * GITHUB#12709 Consolidate FSTStore and BytesStore in FST. Created
> FSTReader which contains the common methods
> ---
> > * GITHUB#12709: Consolidate FSTStore and BytesStore in FST. Created
> FSTReader which contains the common methods
> 33,34d32
> < * GITHUB#12735: Remove FSTCompiler#getTermCount() and
> FSTCompiler.UnCompiledNode#inputCount (Anh Dung Bui)
> <
> 37a36,37
> > * GITHUB#12735: Remove FSTCompiler#getTermCount() and
> FSTCompiler.UnCompiledNode#inputCount (Anh Dung Bui)
> >
> 166a167,168
> > * GITHUB#12748: Specialize arc store for continuous label in FST. (Guo
> Feng, Zhang Chao)
> >
> 173,177d174
> < * GITHUB#12748: Specialize arc store for continuous label in FST. (Guo
> Feng, Chao Zhang)
> <
> < * GITHUB#12825, GITHUB#12834: Hunspell: improved dictionary loading
> performance, allowed in-memory entry sorting.
> <   (Peter Gromov)
> <
> 185,186d181
> <
> < * GITHUB#12552: Make FSTPostingsFormat load FSTs off-heap. (Tony X)
>
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 6:01 AM Michael McCandless <
> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
> Oh, and that the CHANGES.txt entries in e.g. 9.9.0 section match on 9.x
> and main branches... I think that one we have some automation to catch?
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 5:58 AM Michael McCandless <
> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Team,
>
> I see Chris is tagging issues that were left open after their linked PRs
> were merged (thanks!).
>
> Is there something in our release tooling that cross-checks all the weakly
> linked metadata today: Milestone marked (or more often: not) on an issue vs
> commits to the respective branches vs location in Lucene's CHANGES.txt vs
> open/closed issue matching the linked PRs?
>
> It seems like some simple automation here could catch mistakes.  E.g. I'm
> uncertain I properly moved all the FST related CHANGES.txt entries to the
> right places.
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
>

Re: GitHub issues vs PRs vs Lucene's CHANGES.txt

[Dongyu Xu]

Hopefully this is relevant.

There are useful tools like git-cliff​ for automating changelog generation.

https://github.com/orhun/git-cliff

Tony X

From: Michael McCandless 
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 4:30 AM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org 
Subject: Re: GitHub issues vs PRs vs Lucene's CHANGES.txt

Well, I created a starting tool to at least help us keep the 
what-should-be-identical-yet-is-nearly-impossible-for-us-to-achieve sections in 
CHANGES.txt in sync: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12860

Right now it finds a number of mostly minor differences in the 9.9.0 sections 
in main vs branch_9_9:

NOTE: resolving branch_9_9 --> 
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/lucene/branch_9_9/lucene/CHANGES.txt
NOTE: resolving main --> 
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/lucene/main/lucene/CHANGES.txt
15a16,18
> * GITHUB#12646, GITHUB#12690: Move FST#addNode to FSTCompiler to avoid a 
> circular dependency
>   between FST and FSTCompiler (Anh Dung Bui)
>
27,30c30
< * GITHUB#12646, GITHUB#12690: Move FST#addNode to FSTCompiler to avoid a 
circular dependency
<   between FST and FSTCompiler (Anh Dung Bui)
<
< * GITHUB#12709 Consolidate FSTStore and BytesStore in FST. Created FSTReader 
which contains the common methods
---
> * GITHUB#12709: Consolidate FSTStore and BytesStore in FST. Created FSTReader 
> which contains the common methods
33,34d32
< * GITHUB#12735: Remove FSTCompiler#getTermCount() and 
FSTCompiler.UnCompiledNode#inputCount (Anh Dung Bui)
<
37a36,37
> * GITHUB#12735: Remove FSTCompiler#getTermCount() and 
> FSTCompiler.UnCompiledNode#inputCount (Anh Dung Bui)
>
166a167,168
> * GITHUB#12748: Specialize arc store for continuous label in FST. (Guo Feng, 
> Zhang Chao)
>
173,177d174
< * GITHUB#12748: Specialize arc store for continuous label in FST. (Guo Feng, 
Chao Zhang)
<
< * GITHUB#12825, GITHUB#12834: Hunspell: improved dictionary loading 
performance, allowed in-memory entry sorting.
<   (Peter Gromov)
<
185,186d181
<
< * GITHUB#12552: Make FSTPostingsFormat load FSTs off-heap. (Tony X)


Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com


On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 6:01 AM Michael McCandless 
mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com>> wrote:
Oh, and that the CHANGES.txt entries in e.g. 9.9.0 section match on 9.x and 
main branches... I think that one we have some automation to catch?

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com


On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 5:58 AM Michael McCandless 
mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com>> wrote:
Hi Team,

I see Chris is tagging issues that were left open after their linked PRs were 
merged (thanks!).

Is there something in our release tooling that cross-checks all the weakly 
linked metadata today: Milestone marked (or more often: not) on an issue vs 
commits to the respective branches vs location in Lucene's CHANGES.txt vs 
open/closed issue matching the linked PRs?

It seems like some simple automation here could catch mistakes.  E.g. I'm 
uncertain I properly moved all the FST related CHANGES.txt entries to the right 
places.

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

Re: ./crave pull .. 'heapdumps/* Fwd: [JENKINS] Solr » Solr-Check-9.x - Build # 5949 - Still Failing!

[Yuvraaj Kelkar]

I just started a build with crave:
crave run ./gradlew --console=plain check integrationTests

And at the end of it, looked for the patterns in the crave pull command:
admin@171074329f9e:/tmp/src/solr$ find . -name '*.events'
admin@171074329f9e:/tmp/src/solr$ find . -name 'hs_err_pid*'
admin@171074329f9e:/tmp/src/solr$
admin@171074329f9e:/tmp/src/solr$ ls -l heapdumps
ls: cannot access 'heapdumps': No such file or directory
The only thing I could get a lot of output on was
admin@171074329f9e:/tmp/src/solr$ find . | grep 'build.*test.TEST' | head
./solr/solr-ref-guide/build/test-results/test/TEST-org.apache.solr.client.ref_guide_examples.JsonRequestApiTest.xml
./solr/solr-ref-guide/build/test-results/test/TEST-org.apache.solr.client.ref_guide_examples.UsingSolrJRefGuideExamplesTest.xml
 
(https://link.getmailspring.com/link/a1463805-bfd9-43a5-bd19-08e9ae1a4...@getmailspring.com/0?redirect=TEST-org.apache.solr.client.ref_guide_examples.UsingSolrJRefGuideExamplesTest.xml=ZGV2QGx1Y2VuZS5hcGFjaGUub3Jn)
./solr/solr-ref-guide/build/test-results/test/TEST-org.apache.solr.client.ref_guide_examples.IndexingNestedDocuments.xml
./solr/solr-ref-guide/build/test-results/test/TEST-org.apache.solr.client.ref_guide_examples.ZkConfigFilesTest.xml
./solr/solr-ref-guide/build/test-results/test/TEST-org.apache.solr.client.ref_guide_examples.JsonRequestApiHeatmapFacetingTest.xml
./solr/prometheus-exporter/build/test-results/test/TEST-org.apache.solr.prometheus.exporter.SolrExporterIntegrationTest.xml
./solr/prometheus-exporter/build/test-results/test/TEST-org.apache.solr.prometheus.scraper.SolrStandaloneScraperBasicAuthTest.xml
./solr/prometheus-exporter/build/test-results/test/TEST-org.apache.solr.prometheus.exporter.MetricsQueryTemplateTest.xml
./solr/prometheus-exporter/build/test-results/test/TEST-org.apache.solr.prometheus.scraper.SolrStandaloneScraperTest.xml
./solr/prometheus-exporter/build/test-results/test/TEST-org.apache.solr.prometheus.scraper.SolrCloudScraperTest.xml
Is there some other build command required to generate the other file patterns?
Thanks,
-Uv

On Nov 30 2023, at 11:33 am, Yuvraaj Kelkar  wrote:
> Investigating.
>
> On Nov 26 2023, at 12:32 am, Mikhail Khludnev  wrote:
> > Pardon
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 11:28 AM Gautam Worah  > (mailto:worah.gau...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > > I think you meant to send it to d...@solr.apache.org 
> > > (mailto:d...@solr.apache.org)?
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 12:24 AM Mikhail Khludnev  > > (mailto:m...@apache.org)> wrote:
> > > > Hello
> > > > It's rather like a logical error in crave pull. How to work around it?
> > > >
> > > > + status=0
> > > > + ./crave pull '**/build/**/test/TEST-*.xml' '**/*.events' 
> > > > 'heapdumps/**' '**/hs_err_pid*'
> > > > Error: rsync: [sender] change_dir "/tmp/src/solr/heapdumps" failed: No 
> > > > such file or directory (2)
> > > > rsync error: some files/attrs were not transferred (see previous 
> > > > errors) (code 23) at main.c(1682) [Receiver=3.1.3]
> > > > rsync: [Receiver] write error: Broken pipe (32)
> > > >
> > > > + exit 0
> > > > -- Forwarded message -
> > > > From: Apache Jenkins Server  > > > (mailto:jenk...@builds.apache.org)>
> > > > Date: Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 11:17 AM
> > > > Subject: [JENKINS] Solr » Solr-Check-9.x - Build # 5949 - Still Failing!
> > > > To: mailto:bui...@solr.apache.org)>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Build: https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Solr/job/Solr-Check-9.x/5949/
> > > > No tests ran.
> > > > Build Log:
> > > > [...truncated 1490 lines...]
> > > > ERROR: Step ‘Publish JUnit test result report’ failed: No test report 
> > > > files were found. Configuration error?
> > > > Email was triggered for: Failure - Any
> > > > Sending email for trigger: Failure - Any
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: builds-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org 
> > > > (mailto:builds-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org)
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: builds-h...@solr.apache.org 
> > > > (mailto:builds-h...@solr.apache.org)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sincerely yours
> > > > Mikhail Khludnev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely yours
> > Mikhail Khludnev
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC2

[Benjamin Trent]

SUCCESS! [0:44:05.132154]

+1

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 1:09 PM Chris Hegarty
 wrote:

> Please vote for release candidate 2 for Lucene 9.9.0
>
>
> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.0-RC2-rev-06070c0dceba07f0d33104192d9ac98ca16fc500
>
>
> 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-9.9.0-RC2-rev-06070c0dceba07f0d33104192d9ac98ca16fc500
>
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours, and given the weekend in
> between, let’s keep it open until 2023-12-04 12:00 UTC.
>
> [ ] +1  approve
>
> [ ] +0  no opinion
>
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
>
> Here is my +1
>
>
> -Chris.
>
>

Re: ./crave pull .. 'heapdumps/* Fwd: [JENKINS] Solr » Solr-Check-9.x - Build # 5949 - Still Failing!

[Yuvraaj Kelkar]

Investigating.

On Nov 26 2023, at 12:32 am, Mikhail Khludnev  wrote:
> Pardon
>
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 11:28 AM Gautam Worah  (mailto:worah.gau...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > I think you meant to send it to d...@solr.apache.org 
> > (mailto:d...@solr.apache.org)?
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 12:24 AM Mikhail Khludnev  > (mailto:m...@apache.org)> wrote:
> > > Hello
> > > It's rather like a logical error in crave pull. How to work around it?
> > > + status=0
> > > + ./crave pull '**/build/**/test/TEST-*.xml' '**/*.events' 'heapdumps/**' 
> > > '**/hs_err_pid*'
> > > Error: rsync: [sender] change_dir "/tmp/src/solr/heapdumps" failed: No 
> > > such file or directory (2)
> > > rsync error: some files/attrs were not transferred (see previous errors) 
> > > (code 23) at main.c(1682) [Receiver=3.1.3]
> > > rsync: [Receiver] write error: Broken pipe (32)
> > >
> > > + exit 0
> > > -- Forwarded message -
> > > From: Apache Jenkins Server  > > (mailto:jenk...@builds.apache.org)>
> > > Date: Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 11:17 AM
> > > Subject: [JENKINS] Solr » Solr-Check-9.x - Build # 5949 - Still Failing!
> > > To: mailto:bui...@solr.apache.org)>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Build: https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Solr/job/Solr-Check-9.x/5949/
> > > No tests ran.
> > > Build Log:
> > > [...truncated 1490 lines...]
> > > ERROR: Step ‘Publish JUnit test result report’ failed: No test report 
> > > files were found. Configuration error?
> > > Email was triggered for: Failure - Any
> > > Sending email for trigger: Failure - Any
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: builds-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org 
> > > (mailto:builds-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org)
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: builds-h...@solr.apache.org 
> > > (mailto:builds-h...@solr.apache.org)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sincerely yours
> > > Mikhail Khludnev
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sincerely yours
> Mikhail Khludnev
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

[Adrien Grand]

My expectation is that we will do a 9.x minor at about the same time as
10.0 anyway, this is what we have done in the past for new majors. This
will give an opportunity to make sure we have deprecation warnings for all
breaking changes in 10.0.

Le jeu. 30 nov. 2023, 10:43, Chris Hegarty
 a écrit :

> For clarity, consider this vote cancelled. A new vote has been started on
> an RC2 build.
>
> On 30 Nov 2023, at 16:22, Greg Miller  wrote:
>
> If we're spinning a new RC, I'd like to ask this group if it would make
> sense to pull this very small method deprecation in:
> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12854
>
> If there's a chance we don't release a 9.10 and go directly to 10.0, this
> would be our last opportunity to mark it deprecated on a 9.x version so we
> can actually remove it in 10.0. It's really minor though, so I don't want
> to create churn, but if we can get it into 9.9 without much issue, it would
> be nice. If folks agree, I can get it merged onto 9.9.
>
>
> Thanks for raising the issue. I don’t have a strong opinion on whether or
> not to do the deprecation in this release, and since you say that it is
> minor, then I don’t see that it necessitates another respin.
>
> Since I had already started an RC2 build, then I just continued with it
> (and since the above issue is not yet reviewed ). If others feel like the
> deprecation should absolutely be in, then we can do an RC3.
>
> -Chris.
>
> Cheers,
> -Greg
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 7:58 AM Michael Sokolov 
> wrote:
>
>> for the sake of posterity, I did get a successful smoketest:
>>
>> SUCCESS! [1:00:06.512261]
>>
>> but +0 to release I guess since it's moot...
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:38 AM Michael McCandless <
>> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 9:56 AM Chris Hegarty
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> P.S. I’m less sure about this, but the RC 2 starts a 72hr voting time
 again? (Just so I know what TTL to put on that)

>>>
>>> Yeah a new 72 hour clock starts with each new RC :)
>>>
>>> Mike McCandless
>>>
>>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>>
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

[Greg Miller]

> Thanks for raising the issue. I don’t have a strong opinion on whether or
not to do the deprecation in this release, and since you say that it is
minor, then I don’t see that it necessitates another respin. Since I had
already started an RC2 build, then I just continued with it (and since the
above issue is not yet reviewed ). If others feel like the deprecation
should absolutely be in, then we can do an RC3.

++, makes total sense. Not worth stalling the RC. If RC2 fails to go
forward for some other reason, I'd like to see if I can get this into RC3,
but I wouldn't block RC2 for this minor change. Thanks!

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:43 AM Chris Hegarty
 wrote:

> For clarity, consider this vote cancelled. A new vote has been started on
> an RC2 build.
>
> On 30 Nov 2023, at 16:22, Greg Miller  wrote:
>
> If we're spinning a new RC, I'd like to ask this group if it would make
> sense to pull this very small method deprecation in:
> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12854
>
> If there's a chance we don't release a 9.10 and go directly to 10.0, this
> would be our last opportunity to mark it deprecated on a 9.x version so we
> can actually remove it in 10.0. It's really minor though, so I don't want
> to create churn, but if we can get it into 9.9 without much issue, it would
> be nice. If folks agree, I can get it merged onto 9.9.
>
>
> Thanks for raising the issue. I don’t have a strong opinion on whether or
> not to do the deprecation in this release, and since you say that it is
> minor, then I don’t see that it necessitates another respin.
>
> Since I had already started an RC2 build, then I just continued with it
> (and since the above issue is not yet reviewed ). If others feel like the
> deprecation should absolutely be in, then we can do an RC3.
>
> -Chris.
>
> Cheers,
> -Greg
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 7:58 AM Michael Sokolov 
> wrote:
>
>> for the sake of posterity, I did get a successful smoketest:
>>
>> SUCCESS! [1:00:06.512261]
>>
>> but +0 to release I guess since it's moot...
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:38 AM Michael McCandless <
>> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 9:56 AM Chris Hegarty
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> P.S. I’m less sure about this, but the RC 2 starts a 72hr voting time
 again? (Just so I know what TTL to put on that)

>>>
>>> Yeah a new 72 hour clock starts with each new RC :)
>>>
>>> Mike McCandless
>>>
>>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>>
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

[Chris Hegarty]

For clarity, consider this vote cancelled. A new vote has been started on an 
RC2 build.

> On 30 Nov 2023, at 16:22, Greg Miller  wrote:
> 
> If we're spinning a new RC, I'd like to ask this group if it would make sense 
> to pull this very small method deprecation in: 
> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12854
> 
> If there's a chance we don't release a 9.10 and go directly to 10.0, this 
> would be our last opportunity to mark it deprecated on a 9.x version so we 
> can actually remove it in 10.0. It's really minor though, so I don't want to 
> create churn, but if we can get it into 9.9 without much issue, it would be 
> nice. If folks agree, I can get it merged onto 9.9.

Thanks for raising the issue. I don’t have a strong opinion on whether or not 
to do the deprecation in this release, and since you say that it is minor, then 
I don’t see that it necessitates another respin.

Since I had already started an RC2 build, then I just continued with it (and 
since the above issue is not yet reviewed ). If others feel like the 
deprecation should absolutely be in, then we can do an RC3.

-Chris. 

> Cheers,
> -Greg
> 
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 7:58 AM Michael Sokolov  > wrote:
>> for the sake of posterity, I did get a successful smoketest:
>> 
>> SUCCESS! [1:00:06.512261]
>> 
>> but +0 to release I guess since it's moot...
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:38 AM Michael McCandless 
>> mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 9:56 AM Chris Hegarty 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
 P.S. I’m less sure about this, but the RC 2 starts a 72hr voting time 
 again? (Just so I know what TTL to put on that)
>>> 
>>> Yeah a new 72 hour clock starts with each new RC :)
>>> 
>>> Mike McCandless
>>> 
>>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com 

[VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC2

[Chris Hegarty]

Please vote for release candidate 2 for Lucene 9.9.0

The artifacts can be downloaded from:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.0-RC2-rev-06070c0dceba07f0d33104192d9ac98ca16fc500

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-9.9.0-RC2-rev-06070c0dceba07f0d33104192d9ac98ca16fc500

The vote will be open for at least 72 hours, and given the weekend in between, 
let’s keep it open until 2023-12-04 12:00 UTC.

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

Here is my +1

-Chris.

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

[Uwe Schindler]

OK, great. I wanted to post a +1 already. Will wait for 2nd RC.

Uwe

Am 30.11.2023 um 16:38 schrieb Michael McCandless:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 9:56 AM Chris Hegarty 
 wrote:


P.S. I’m less sure about this, but the RC 2 starts a 72hr voting
time again? (Just so I know what TTL to put on that)


Yeah a new 72 hour clock starts with each new RC :)

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com


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

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

[Greg Miller]

If we're spinning a new RC, I'd like to ask this group if it would make
sense to pull this very small method deprecation in:
https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12854

If there's a chance we don't release a 9.10 and go directly to 10.0, this
would be our last opportunity to mark it deprecated on a 9.x version so we
can actually remove it in 10.0. It's really minor though, so I don't want
to create churn, but if we can get it into 9.9 without much issue, it would
be nice. If folks agree, I can get it merged onto 9.9.

Cheers,
-Greg

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 7:58 AM Michael Sokolov  wrote:

> for the sake of posterity, I did get a successful smoketest:
>
> SUCCESS! [1:00:06.512261]
>
> but +0 to release I guess since it's moot...
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:38 AM Michael McCandless <
> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 9:56 AM Chris Hegarty
>>  wrote:
>>
>> P.S. I’m less sure about this, but the RC 2 starts a 72hr voting time
>>> again? (Just so I know what TTL to put on that)
>>>
>>
>> Yeah a new 72 hour clock starts with each new RC :)
>>
>> Mike McCandless
>>
>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

[Michael Sokolov]

for the sake of posterity, I did get a successful smoketest:

SUCCESS! [1:00:06.512261]

but +0 to release I guess since it's moot...

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 10:38 AM Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 9:56 AM Chris Hegarty
>  wrote:
>
> P.S. I’m less sure about this, but the RC 2 starts a 72hr voting time
>> again? (Just so I know what TTL to put on that)
>>
>
> Yeah a new 72 hour clock starts with each new RC :)
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

[Michael McCandless]

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 9:56 AM Chris Hegarty
 wrote:

P.S. I’m less sure about this, but the RC 2 starts a 72hr voting time
> again? (Just so I know what TTL to put on that)
>

Yeah a new 72 hour clock starts with each new RC :)

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

[Chris Hegarty]

Adrien,

> On 30 Nov 2023, at 14:51, Adrien Grand  wrote:
> 
> Yet another bug due to ghost fields. :( Thanks for fixing! For reference, I 
> checked how postings work on SlowCompositeCodecReaderWrapper, since they are 
> prone to ghost fields as well, and they seem to be ok.

Thanks for checking this Adrien.

> I worry that it could actually occur in practice when enabling recursive 
> graph bisection, so I would prefer to respin.

Since the change has already been merged to branch_9_9 (thanks Mike), I’ll 
start an RC2 build right away, and post a notice when it is done.

-Chris.

P.S. I’m less sure about this, but the RC 2 starts a 72hr voting time again? 
(Just so I know what TTL to put on that)

> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 6:01 AM Luca Cavanna  wrote:
>> SUCCESS! [0:33:10.432870]
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 2:59 PM Chris Hegarty 
>>  wrote:
>>> Hi Mike,
>>> 
 On 30 Nov 2023, at 11:41, Michael McCandless >>> > wrote:
 
 +1 to release.
 
 I hit a corner-case test failure and opened a PR to fix it: 
 https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12859
>>> 
>>> Good find!  It looks like the fix for this issue is well in hand - great.
>>> 
 I don't think this should block the release? -- it looks exotic.
>>> 
>>> I’m not sure how likely this bug is to show in real (non-test) scenarios, 
>>> but it does look kinda “exotic” to me too. So unless there are counter 
>>> arguments, I do not see it as critical, and therefore not needing a respin.
>>> 
>>> -Chris.
>>> 
 
 Thanks Chris!
 
 Mike McCandless
 
 http://blog.mikemccandless.com 
 
 On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 1:16 AM Patrick Zhai >>> > wrote:
> SUCCESS! [1:03:54.880200]
> 
> +1. Thank you Chris!
> 
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:45 PM Nhat Nguyen 
>  wrote:
>> SUCCESS! [1:11:30.037919]
>> 
>> +1. Thanks, Chris!
>> 
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:53 AM Chris Hegarty 
>>  wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.9.0
>>> 
>>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.0-RC1-rev-92a5e5b02e0e083126c4122f2b7a02426c21a037
>>> 
>>> 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-9.9.0-RC1-rev-92a5e5b02e0e083126c4122f2b7a02426c21a037
>>> 
>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours, and given the weekend in 
>>> between, let’s it open until 2023-12-04 12:00 UTC.
>>> 
>>> [ ] +1  approve
>>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>> 
>>> Here is my +1
>>> 
>>> Draft release highlights can be viewed here (comments and feedback 
>>> welcome):
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/ReleaseNote9_9_0
>>> 
>>> -Chris.
>>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Adrien

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

[Adrien Grand]

Yet another bug due to ghost fields. :( Thanks for fixing! For reference, I
checked how postings work on SlowCompositeCodecReaderWrapper, since they
are prone to ghost fields as well, and they seem to be ok.

I worry that it could actually occur in practice when enabling recursive
graph bisection, so I would prefer to respin.

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 6:01 AM Luca Cavanna 
wrote:

> SUCCESS! [0:33:10.432870]
>
> +1
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 2:59 PM Chris Hegarty
>  wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> On 30 Nov 2023, at 11:41, Michael McCandless 
>> wrote:
>>
>> +1 to release.
>>
>> I hit a corner-case test failure and opened a PR to fix it:
>> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12859
>>
>>
>> Good find!  It looks like the fix for this issue is well in hand - great.
>>
>> I don't think this should block the release? -- it looks exotic.
>>
>>
>> I’m not sure how likely this bug is to show in real (non-test) scenarios,
>> but it does look kinda “exotic” to me too. So unless there are counter
>> arguments, I do not see it as critical, and therefore not needing a respin.
>>
>> -Chris.
>>
>>
>> Thanks Chris!
>>
>> Mike McCandless
>>
>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 1:16 AM Patrick Zhai  wrote:
>>
>>> SUCCESS! [1:03:54.880200]
>>>
>>> +1. Thank you Chris!
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:45 PM Nhat Nguyen
>>>  wrote:
>>>
 SUCCESS! [1:11:30.037919]

 +1. Thanks, Chris!

 On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:53 AM Chris Hegarty
  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.9.0
>
> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.0-RC1-rev-92a5e5b02e0e083126c4122f2b7a02426c21a037
>
> 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-9.9.0-RC1-rev-92a5e5b02e0e083126c4122f2b7a02426c21a037
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours, and given the weekend in
> between, let’s it open until 2023-12-04 12:00 UTC.
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here is my +1
>
> Draft release highlights can be viewed here (comments and feedback
> welcome):
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/ReleaseNote9_9_0
>
> -Chris.
>

>>

-- 
Adrien

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

[Luca Cavanna]

SUCCESS! [0:33:10.432870]

+1

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 2:59 PM Chris Hegarty
 wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> On 30 Nov 2023, at 11:41, Michael McCandless 
> wrote:
>
> +1 to release.
>
> I hit a corner-case test failure and opened a PR to fix it:
> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12859
>
>
> Good find!  It looks like the fix for this issue is well in hand - great.
>
> I don't think this should block the release? -- it looks exotic.
>
>
> I’m not sure how likely this bug is to show in real (non-test) scenarios,
> but it does look kinda “exotic” to me too. So unless there are counter
> arguments, I do not see it as critical, and therefore not needing a respin.
>
> -Chris.
>
>
> Thanks Chris!
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 1:16 AM Patrick Zhai  wrote:
>
>> SUCCESS! [1:03:54.880200]
>>
>> +1. Thank you Chris!
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:45 PM Nhat Nguyen
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> SUCCESS! [1:11:30.037919]
>>>
>>> +1. Thanks, Chris!
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:53 AM Chris Hegarty
>>>  wrote:
>>>
 Hi,

 Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.9.0

 The artifacts can be downloaded from:

 https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.0-RC1-rev-92a5e5b02e0e083126c4122f2b7a02426c21a037

 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-9.9.0-RC1-rev-92a5e5b02e0e083126c4122f2b7a02426c21a037

 The vote will be open for at least 72 hours, and given the weekend in
 between, let’s it open until 2023-12-04 12:00 UTC.

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

 Here is my +1

 Draft release highlights can be viewed here (comments and feedback
 welcome):
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/ReleaseNote9_9_0

 -Chris.

>>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

[Chris Hegarty]

Hi Mike,

> On 30 Nov 2023, at 11:41, Michael McCandless  
> wrote:
> 
> +1 to release.
> 
> I hit a corner-case test failure and opened a PR to fix it: 
> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12859

Good find!  It looks like the fix for this issue is well in hand - great.

> I don't think this should block the release? -- it looks exotic.

I’m not sure how likely this bug is to show in real (non-test) scenarios, but 
it does look kinda “exotic” to me too. So unless there are counter arguments, I 
do not see it as critical, and therefore not needing a respin.

-Chris.

> 
> Thanks Chris!
> 
> Mike McCandless
> 
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 1:16 AM Patrick Zhai  > wrote:
>> SUCCESS! [1:03:54.880200]
>> 
>> +1. Thank you Chris!
>> 
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:45 PM Nhat Nguyen  
>> wrote:
>>> SUCCESS! [1:11:30.037919]
>>> 
>>> +1. Thanks, Chris!
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:53 AM Chris Hegarty 
>>>  wrote:
 Hi,
 
 Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.9.0
 
 The artifacts can be downloaded from:
 https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.0-RC1-rev-92a5e5b02e0e083126c4122f2b7a02426c21a037
 
 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-9.9.0-RC1-rev-92a5e5b02e0e083126c4122f2b7a02426c21a037
 
 The vote will be open for at least 72 hours, and given the weekend in 
 between, let’s it open until 2023-12-04 12:00 UTC.
 
 [ ] +1  approve
 [ ] +0  no opinion
 [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
 
 Here is my +1
 
 Draft release highlights can be viewed here (comments and feedback 
 welcome):
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/ReleaseNote9_9_0
 
 -Chris.

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

[Benjamin Trent]

SUCCESS! [0:47:11.013106]

+1

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 7:16 AM Ignacio Vera  wrote:

> SUCCESS! [0:52:59.891964]
>
>
> +1
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:42 PM Michael McCandless <
> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 to release.
>>
>> I hit a corner-case test failure and opened a PR to fix it:
>> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12859
>>
>> I don't think this should block the release? -- it looks exotic.
>>
>> Thanks Chris!
>>
>> Mike McCandless
>>
>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 1:16 AM Patrick Zhai  wrote:
>>
>>> SUCCESS! [1:03:54.880200]
>>>
>>> +1. Thank you Chris!
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:45 PM Nhat Nguyen
>>>  wrote:
>>>
 SUCCESS! [1:11:30.037919]

 +1. Thanks, Chris!

 On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:53 AM Chris Hegarty
  wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.9.0
>
>
> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.0-RC1-rev-92a5e5b02e0e083126c4122f2b7a02426c21a037
>
>
> 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-9.9.0-RC1-rev-92a5e5b02e0e083126c4122f2b7a02426c21a037
>
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours, and given the weekend in
> between, let’s it open until 2023-12-04 12:00 UTC.
>
>
> [ ] +1  approve
>
> [ ] +0  no opinion
>
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
>
> Here is my +1
>
>
> Draft release highlights can be viewed here (comments and feedback
> welcome):
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/ReleaseNote9_9_0
>
> -Chris.
>

Re: GitHub issues vs PRs vs Lucene's CHANGES.txt

[Michael McCandless]

Well, I created a starting tool to at least help us keep the
what-should-be-identical-yet-is-nearly-impossible-for-us-to-achieve
sections in CHANGES.txt in sync: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12860

Right now it finds a number of mostly minor differences in the 9.9.0
sections in main vs branch_9_9:

NOTE: resolving branch_9_9 -->
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/lucene/branch_9_9/lucene/CHANGES.txt
NOTE: resolving main -->
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/lucene/main/lucene/CHANGES.txt
15a16,18
> * GITHUB#12646, GITHUB#12690: Move FST#addNode to FSTCompiler to avoid a
circular dependency
>   between FST and FSTCompiler (Anh Dung Bui)
>
27,30c30
< * GITHUB#12646, GITHUB#12690: Move FST#addNode to FSTCompiler to avoid a
circular dependency
<   between FST and FSTCompiler (Anh Dung Bui)
<
< * GITHUB#12709 Consolidate FSTStore and BytesStore in FST. Created
FSTReader which contains the common methods
---
> * GITHUB#12709: Consolidate FSTStore and BytesStore in FST. Created
FSTReader which contains the common methods
33,34d32
< * GITHUB#12735: Remove FSTCompiler#getTermCount() and
FSTCompiler.UnCompiledNode#inputCount (Anh Dung Bui)
<
37a36,37
> * GITHUB#12735: Remove FSTCompiler#getTermCount() and
FSTCompiler.UnCompiledNode#inputCount (Anh Dung Bui)
>
166a167,168
> * GITHUB#12748: Specialize arc store for continuous label in FST. (Guo
Feng, Zhang Chao)
>
173,177d174
< * GITHUB#12748: Specialize arc store for continuous label in FST. (Guo
Feng, Chao Zhang)
<
< * GITHUB#12825, GITHUB#12834: Hunspell: improved dictionary loading
performance, allowed in-memory entry sorting.
<   (Peter Gromov)
<
185,186d181
<
< * GITHUB#12552: Make FSTPostingsFormat load FSTs off-heap. (Tony X)


Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com


On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 6:01 AM Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:

> Oh, and that the CHANGES.txt entries in e.g. 9.9.0 section match on 9.x
> and main branches... I think that one we have some automation to catch?
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 5:58 AM Michael McCandless <
> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Team,
>>
>> I see Chris is tagging issues that were left open after their linked PRs
>> were merged (thanks!).
>>
>> Is there something in our release tooling that cross-checks all the
>> weakly linked metadata today: Milestone marked (or more often: not) on an
>> issue vs commits to the respective branches vs location in Lucene's
>> CHANGES.txt vs open/closed issue matching the linked PRs?
>>
>> It seems like some simple automation here could catch mistakes.  E.g. I'm
>> uncertain I properly moved all the FST related CHANGES.txt entries to the
>> right places.
>>
>> Mike McCandless
>>
>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

[Ignacio Vera]

SUCCESS! [0:52:59.891964]


+1

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:42 PM Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:

> +1 to release.
>
> I hit a corner-case test failure and opened a PR to fix it:
> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12859
>
> I don't think this should block the release? -- it looks exotic.
>
> Thanks Chris!
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 1:16 AM Patrick Zhai  wrote:
>
>> SUCCESS! [1:03:54.880200]
>>
>> +1. Thank you Chris!
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:45 PM Nhat Nguyen
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> SUCCESS! [1:11:30.037919]
>>>
>>> +1. Thanks, Chris!
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:53 AM Chris Hegarty
>>>  wrote:
>>>
 Hi,


 Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.9.0


 The artifacts can be downloaded from:


 https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.0-RC1-rev-92a5e5b02e0e083126c4122f2b7a02426c21a037


 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-9.9.0-RC1-rev-92a5e5b02e0e083126c4122f2b7a02426c21a037


 The vote will be open for at least 72 hours, and given the weekend in
 between, let’s it open until 2023-12-04 12:00 UTC.


 [ ] +1  approve

 [ ] +0  no opinion

 [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)


 Here is my +1


 Draft release highlights can be viewed here (comments and feedback
 welcome):
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/ReleaseNote9_9_0

 -Chris.

>>>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.9.0 RC1

[Michael McCandless]

+1 to release.

I hit a corner-case test failure and opened a PR to fix it:
https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12859

I don't think this should block the release? -- it looks exotic.

Thanks Chris!

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com


On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 1:16 AM Patrick Zhai  wrote:

> SUCCESS! [1:03:54.880200]
>
> +1. Thank you Chris!
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:45 PM Nhat Nguyen 
> wrote:
>
>> SUCCESS! [1:11:30.037919]
>>
>> +1. Thanks, Chris!
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:53 AM Chris Hegarty
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.9.0
>>>
>>>
>>> The artifacts can be downloaded from:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.9.0-RC1-rev-92a5e5b02e0e083126c4122f2b7a02426c21a037
>>>
>>>
>>> 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-9.9.0-RC1-rev-92a5e5b02e0e083126c4122f2b7a02426c21a037
>>>
>>>
>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours, and given the weekend in
>>> between, let’s it open until 2023-12-04 12:00 UTC.
>>>
>>>
>>> [ ] +1  approve
>>>
>>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>>>
>>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is my +1
>>>
>>>
>>> Draft release highlights can be viewed here (comments and feedback
>>> welcome):
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/ReleaseNote9_9_0
>>>
>>> -Chris.
>>>
>>

Re: [JENKINS] Lucene » Lucene-Check-main - Build # 10750 - Unstable!

[Michael McCandless]

I hit this one running the smoke tester on 9.9.0 RC 0, and it repros.  I'll
open an issue ... I think it's just a missing null check in the
SlowCompositeCodecReaderWrapper.

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com


On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 6:37 PM Apache Jenkins Server <
jenk...@builds.apache.org> wrote:

> Build:
> https://ci-builds.apache.org/job/Lucene/job/Lucene-Check-main/10750/
>
> 2 tests failed.
> FAILED:
> org.apache.lucene.search.TestPointQueries.testAllPointDocsWereDeletedAndThenMergedAgain
>
> Error Message:
> java.io.IOException: background merge hit exception:
> _3(10.0.0):C2:[diagnostics={lucene.version=10.0.0, source=merge,
> os.arch=amd64, java.runtime.version=17.0.7+7, mergeFactor=1, os=Linux,
> java.vendor=Eclipse Adoptium, os.version=5.4.0-167-generic,
> timestamp=1701213730838,
> mergeMaxNumSegments=1}]:[attributes={Lucene90StoredFieldsFormat.mode=BEST_SPEED}]
> :id=4i1dci11qy6ymdhw6cirss6iz into _4 [maxNumSegments=1]
>
> Stack Trace:
> java.io.IOException: background merge hit exception:
> _3(10.0.0):C2:[diagnostics={lucene.version=10.0.0, source=merge,
> os.arch=amd64, java.runtime.version=17.0.7+7, mergeFactor=1, os=Linux,
> java.vendor=Eclipse Adoptium, os.version=5.4.0-167-generic,
> timestamp=1701213730838,
> mergeMaxNumSegments=1}]:[attributes={Lucene90StoredFieldsFormat.mode=BEST_SPEED}]
> :id=4i1dci11qy6ymdhw6cirss6iz into _4 [maxNumSegments=1]
> at
> __randomizedtesting.SeedInfo.seed([F9345050587589D4:B625E461757388B1]:0)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.forceMerge(IndexWriter.java:2170)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.forceMerge(IndexWriter.java:2099)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.search.TestPointQueries.testAllPointDocsWereDeletedAndThenMergedAgain(TestPointQueries.java:1212)
> at
> java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native
> Method)
> at
> java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:77)
> at
> java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
> at java.base/java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:568)
> at
> com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.RandomizedRunner.invoke(RandomizedRunner.java:1758)
> at
> com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.RandomizedRunner$8.evaluate(RandomizedRunner.java:946)
> at
> com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.RandomizedRunner$9.evaluate(RandomizedRunner.java:982)
> at
> com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.RandomizedRunner$10.evaluate(RandomizedRunner.java:996)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.tests.util.TestRuleSetupTeardownChained$1.evaluate(TestRuleSetupTeardownChained.java:48)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.tests.util.AbstractBeforeAfterRule$1.evaluate(AbstractBeforeAfterRule.java:43)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.tests.util.TestRuleThreadAndTestName$1.evaluate(TestRuleThreadAndTestName.java:45)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.tests.util.TestRuleIgnoreAfterMaxFailures$1.evaluate(TestRuleIgnoreAfterMaxFailures.java:60)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.tests.util.TestRuleMarkFailure$1.evaluate(TestRuleMarkFailure.java:44)
> at org.junit.rules.RunRules.evaluate(RunRules.java:20)
> at
> com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.rules.StatementAdapter.evaluate(StatementAdapter.java:36)
> at
> com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.ThreadLeakControl$StatementRunner.run(ThreadLeakControl.java:390)
> at
> com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.ThreadLeakControl.forkTimeoutingTask(ThreadLeakControl.java:843)
> at
> com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.ThreadLeakControl$3.evaluate(ThreadLeakControl.java:490)
> at
> com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.RandomizedRunner.runSingleTest(RandomizedRunner.java:955)
> at
> com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.RandomizedRunner$5.evaluate(RandomizedRunner.java:840)
> at
> com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.RandomizedRunner$6.evaluate(RandomizedRunner.java:891)
> at
> com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.RandomizedRunner$7.evaluate(RandomizedRunner.java:902)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.tests.util.AbstractBeforeAfterRule$1.evaluate(AbstractBeforeAfterRule.java:43)
> at
> com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.rules.StatementAdapter.evaluate(StatementAdapter.java:36)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.tests.util.TestRuleStoreClassName$1.evaluate(TestRuleStoreClassName.java:38)
> at
> com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.rules.NoShadowingOrOverridesOnMethodsRule$1.evaluate(NoShadowingOrOverridesOnMethodsRule.java:40)
> at
> com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.rules.NoShadowingOrOverridesOnMethodsRule$1.evaluate(NoShadowingOrOverridesOnMethodsRule.java:40)
> at
> com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.rules.StatementAdapter.evaluate(StatementAdapter.java:36)
> at
> com.carrotsearch.randomizedtesting.rules.StatementAdapter.evaluate(StatementAdapter.java:36)
> at
>