Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Anshum Gupta]

Thanks Varun, and Uwe. I'll freeze stuff on 7.0 and work on the release now.

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 1:27 AM Varun Thacker  wrote:

> Hi Anshum,
>
> SOLR-11228 was the only fix which I ported from 7.1 to both branch_6_6 and
> branch_7_0 . I don't plan on backporting any other changes from 7.1 to 6.6.1
>
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:
>
>> Hi Anshum,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’d like to get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8689 in, it’s
>> marked as blocker. It would be a bit embarrassing, if we release Solr 7
>> approximately at same time like Java 9 and it does not work on our
>> supported platforms. On Linux it works since beginning of this year, but
>> the windows shell scripts were broken. I am just waiting for comments on
>> this issue about the GC log file handling (unfortunately, I have to ignore
>> custom GC_LOG_OPTS on Java 9, because the windows shell does not allow to
>> rewrite the arguments in the same way like UNIX allows with reg exes).
>>
>>
>>
>> Yesterday (before your mail), I already backported a Hadoop 2.7.2 ->
>> 2.7.4 update, so it works now with Java 9. This made the ugly workaround
>> obsolete (changing java.version sysprop temporarily). This fix is now in
>> 6.6.1 and 7.0 branch.
>>
>>
>>
>> Uwe
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> Uwe Schindler
>>
>> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
>>
>> http://www.thetaphi.de
>>
>> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Anshum Gupta [mailto:ans...@anshumgupta.net]
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 3:31 AM
>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>> *Subject:* Re: 7.0 Release Update
>>
>>
>>
>> Let's not commit more stuff to 7.0, unless it's a blocker as it gets hard
>> to track.
>>
>> At this time, the only commits that would be going in to 7.0 are the ones
>> that Varun spoke to me about back porting.
>>
>> Once that is done, I'll cut an RC (most likely tomorrow). In the
>> meanwhile, I'll work on the release notes, and making sure that the CHANGES
>> are good for 7.0.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anshum
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 8:33 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've added SOLR-11183 to the release branch. Please let me know if
>> someone has any concerns.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ishan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
>>
>> I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11262
>> I don't know if it has implications for 7.0 or not.
>>
>> From the issue:
>> """This means that any code using PushWriter (via MapWriter or
>> IteratorWriter) will be broken if one tries to use XML response
>> format. This may easily go unnoticed if one is not using XML response
>> format in testing (JSON or binary is frequently used)."""
>>
>>
>> -Yonik
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Noble Paul  wrote:
>> > sorry for the last minute notice. I need to fix the folowing as well.
>> > It may take a few hours
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11239
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Andrzej Białecki
>> >  wrote:
>> >> Then, if I may be so bold, I’d like to slip in SOLR-11235, which is a
>> simple
>> >> AlreadyClosedException prevention fix. Patch is ready, tests are
>> passing.
>> >>
>> >> On 14 Aug 2017, at 19:17, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Ab.
>> >>
>> >> I'll cut an RC on Wednesday, so that both, I get the time, and also
>> that the
>> >> tests get some time on Jenkins.
>> >>
>> >> Anshum
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:29 AM Andrzej Białecki
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> I’ve committed the fix for SOLR-11221 to branch_7_0 (and branch_7x and
>> >>> master).
>> >>>
>> >>> On 12 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Andrzej Białecki
>> >>>  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Anshum,
>> >>>
>> >>> The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required
>> larger
>> >>> changes than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that
>> is not
>> >>>

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Varun Thacker]

Hi Anshum,

SOLR-11228 was the only fix which I ported from 7.1 to both branch_6_6 and
branch_7_0 . I don't plan on backporting any other changes from 7.1 to 6.6.1

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:

> Hi Anshum,
>
>
>
> I’d like to get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8689 in, it’s
> marked as blocker. It would be a bit embarrassing, if we release Solr 7
> approximately at same time like Java 9 and it does not work on our
> supported platforms. On Linux it works since beginning of this year, but
> the windows shell scripts were broken. I am just waiting for comments on
> this issue about the GC log file handling (unfortunately, I have to ignore
> custom GC_LOG_OPTS on Java 9, because the windows shell does not allow to
> rewrite the arguments in the same way like UNIX allows with reg exes).
>
>
>
> Yesterday (before your mail), I already backported a Hadoop 2.7.2 -> 2.7.4
> update, so it works now with Java 9. This made the ugly workaround obsolete
> (changing java.version sysprop temporarily). This fix is now in 6.6.1 and
> 7.0 branch.
>
>
>
> Uwe
>
>
>
> -
>
> Uwe Schindler
>
> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
>
> http://www.thetaphi.de
>
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
>
>
> *From:* Anshum Gupta [mailto:ans...@anshumgupta.net]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 3:31 AM
> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: 7.0 Release Update
>
>
>
> Let's not commit more stuff to 7.0, unless it's a blocker as it gets hard
> to track.
>
> At this time, the only commits that would be going in to 7.0 are the ones
> that Varun spoke to me about back porting.
>
> Once that is done, I'll cut an RC (most likely tomorrow). In the
> meanwhile, I'll work on the release notes, and making sure that the CHANGES
> are good for 7.0.
>
>
>
> Anshum
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 8:33 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've added SOLR-11183 to the release branch. Please let me know if someone
> has any concerns.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ishan
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
>
> I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11262
> I don't know if it has implications for 7.0 or not.
>
> From the issue:
> """This means that any code using PushWriter (via MapWriter or
> IteratorWriter) will be broken if one tries to use XML response
> format. This may easily go unnoticed if one is not using XML response
> format in testing (JSON or binary is frequently used)."""
>
>
> -Yonik
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Noble Paul  wrote:
> > sorry for the last minute notice. I need to fix the folowing as well.
> > It may take a few hours
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11239
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Andrzej Białecki
> >  wrote:
> >> Then, if I may be so bold, I’d like to slip in SOLR-11235, which is a
> simple
> >> AlreadyClosedException prevention fix. Patch is ready, tests are
> passing.
> >>
> >> On 14 Aug 2017, at 19:17, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Ab.
> >>
> >> I'll cut an RC on Wednesday, so that both, I get the time, and also
> that the
> >> tests get some time on Jenkins.
> >>
> >> Anshum
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:29 AM Andrzej Białecki
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I’ve committed the fix for SOLR-11221 to branch_7_0 (and branch_7x and
> >>> master).
> >>>
> >>> On 12 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Andrzej Białecki
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Anshum,
> >>>
> >>> The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required larger
> >>> changes than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that
> is not
> >>> so well tested… I added a test that used to fail without this change,
> and
> >>> manual testing confirms that metrics are now correctly reported after
> core
> >>> reloads.
> >>>
> >>> We could postpone this fix to 7.0.1 if there are objections, but I
> think
> >>> it should go in to 7.0 - without the fix JMX reporting is surely
> broken,
> >>> with the fix it’s only a possibility ;)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 19:59, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the report Mark!
> >>>
> >>> and yes, I'll wait until

RE: 7.0 Release Update

[Uwe Schindler]

Hi Anshum,

 

I’d like to get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8689 in, it’s marked 
as blocker. It would be a bit embarrassing, if we release Solr 7 approximately 
at same time like Java 9 and it does not work on our supported platforms. On 
Linux it works since beginning of this year, but the windows shell scripts were 
broken. I am just waiting for comments on this issue about the GC log file 
handling (unfortunately, I have to ignore custom GC_LOG_OPTS on Java 9, because 
the windows shell does not allow to rewrite the arguments in the same way like 
UNIX allows with reg exes).

 

Yesterday (before your mail), I already backported a Hadoop 2.7.2 -> 2.7.4 
update, so it works now with Java 9. This made the ugly workaround obsolete 
(changing java.version sysprop temporarily). This fix is now in 6.6.1 and 7.0 
branch.

 

Uwe

 

-

Uwe Schindler

Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen

http://www.thetaphi.de <http://www.thetaphi.de/> 

eMail: u...@thetaphi.de

 

From: Anshum Gupta [mailto:ans...@anshumgupta.net] 
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:31 AM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: 7.0 Release Update

 

Let's not commit more stuff to 7.0, unless it's a blocker as it gets hard to 
track.

At this time, the only commits that would be going in to 7.0 are the ones that 
Varun spoke to me about back porting. 

Once that is done, I'll cut an RC (most likely tomorrow). In the meanwhile, 
I'll work on the release notes, and making sure that the CHANGES are good for 
7.0.

 

Anshum

 

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 8:33 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya mailto:ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I've added SOLR-11183 to the release branch. Please let me know if someone has 
any concerns.

Thanks,

Ishan

 

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Yonik Seeley mailto:ysee...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11262
I don't know if it has implications for 7.0 or not.

>From the issue:
"""This means that any code using PushWriter (via MapWriter or
IteratorWriter) will be broken if one tries to use XML response
format. This may easily go unnoticed if one is not using XML response
format in testing (JSON or binary is frequently used)."""


-Yonik



On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Noble Paul mailto:noble.p...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> sorry for the last minute notice. I need to fix the folowing as well.
> It may take a few hours
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11239
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Andrzej Białecki
> mailto:andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> > 
> wrote:
>> Then, if I may be so bold, I’d like to slip in SOLR-11235, which is a simple
>> AlreadyClosedException prevention fix. Patch is ready, tests are passing.
>>
>> On 14 Aug 2017, at 19:17, Anshum Gupta > <mailto:ans...@anshumgupta.net> > wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Ab.
>>
>> I'll cut an RC on Wednesday, so that both, I get the time, and also that the
>> tests get some time on Jenkins.
>>
>> Anshum
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:29 AM Andrzej Białecki
>> mailto:andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> > 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I’ve committed the fix for SOLR-11221 to branch_7_0 (and branch_7x and
>>> master).
>>>
>>> On 12 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Andrzej Białecki
>>> mailto:andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> > 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Anshum,
>>>
>>> The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required larger
>>> changes than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that is not
>>> so well tested… I added a test that used to fail without this change, and
>>> manual testing confirms that metrics are now correctly reported after core
>>> reloads.
>>>
>>> We could postpone this fix to 7.0.1 if there are objections, but I think
>>> it should go in to 7.0 - without the fix JMX reporting is surely broken,
>>> with the fix it’s only a possibility ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 19:59, Anshum Gupta >> <mailto:ans...@anshumgupta.net> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the report Mark!
>>>
>>> and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed.
>>>
>>> Anshum
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller >> <mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch:
>>>> http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811
>>>>
>>>> - Mark
>>>>
>>&g

RE: 7.0 Release Update

[Uwe Schindler]

Hi Anshum,

 

I’d like to get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8689 in, it’s marked 
as blocker. It would be a bit embarrassing, if we release Solr 7 approximately 
at same time like Java 9 and it does not work on our supported platforms. On 
Linux it works since beginning of this year, but the windows shell scripts were 
broken. I am just waiting for comments on this issue about the GC log file 
handling (unfortunately, I have to ignore custom GC_LOG_OPTS on Java 9, because 
the windows shell does not allow to rewrite the arguments in the same way like 
UNIX allows with reg exes).

 

Yesterday (before your mail), I already backported a Hadoop 2.7.2 -> 2.7.4 
update, so it works now with Java 9. This made the ugly workaround obsolete 
(changing java.version sysprop temporarily). This fix is now in 6.6.1 and 7.0 
branch.

 

Uwe

 

-

Uwe Schindler

Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen

http://www.thetaphi.de <http://www.thetaphi.de/> 

eMail: u...@thetaphi.de

 

From: Anshum Gupta [mailto:ans...@anshumgupta.net] 
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:31 AM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: 7.0 Release Update

 

Let's not commit more stuff to 7.0, unless it's a blocker as it gets hard to 
track.

At this time, the only commits that would be going in to 7.0 are the ones that 
Varun spoke to me about back porting. 

Once that is done, I'll cut an RC (most likely tomorrow). In the meanwhile, 
I'll work on the release notes, and making sure that the CHANGES are good for 
7.0.

 

Anshum

 

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 8:33 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya mailto:ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I've added SOLR-11183 to the release branch. Please let me know if someone has 
any concerns.

Thanks,

Ishan

 

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Yonik Seeley mailto:ysee...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11262
I don't know if it has implications for 7.0 or not.

>From the issue:
"""This means that any code using PushWriter (via MapWriter or
IteratorWriter) will be broken if one tries to use XML response
format. This may easily go unnoticed if one is not using XML response
format in testing (JSON or binary is frequently used)."""


-Yonik



On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Noble Paul mailto:noble.p...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> sorry for the last minute notice. I need to fix the folowing as well.
> It may take a few hours
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11239
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Andrzej Białecki
> mailto:andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> > 
> wrote:
>> Then, if I may be so bold, I’d like to slip in SOLR-11235, which is a simple
>> AlreadyClosedException prevention fix. Patch is ready, tests are passing.
>>
>> On 14 Aug 2017, at 19:17, Anshum Gupta > <mailto:ans...@anshumgupta.net> > wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Ab.
>>
>> I'll cut an RC on Wednesday, so that both, I get the time, and also that the
>> tests get some time on Jenkins.
>>
>> Anshum
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:29 AM Andrzej Białecki
>> mailto:andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> > 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I’ve committed the fix for SOLR-11221 to branch_7_0 (and branch_7x and
>>> master).
>>>
>>> On 12 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Andrzej Białecki
>>> mailto:andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> > 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Anshum,
>>>
>>> The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required larger
>>> changes than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that is not
>>> so well tested… I added a test that used to fail without this change, and
>>> manual testing confirms that metrics are now correctly reported after core
>>> reloads.
>>>
>>> We could postpone this fix to 7.0.1 if there are objections, but I think
>>> it should go in to 7.0 - without the fix JMX reporting is surely broken,
>>> with the fix it’s only a possibility ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 19:59, Anshum Gupta >> <mailto:ans...@anshumgupta.net> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the report Mark!
>>>
>>> and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed.
>>>
>>> Anshum
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller >> <mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch:
>>>> http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811
>>>>
>>>> - Mark
>>>>
>>&g

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Noble Paul]

There is a bug ishan has opened

SOLR-11268: AtomicUpdateProcessor complains missing UpdateLog

I have already talked to Anshum about it

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> Let's not commit more stuff to 7.0, unless it's a blocker as it gets hard to
> track.
> At this time, the only commits that would be going in to 7.0 are the ones
> that Varun spoke to me about back porting.
> Once that is done, I'll cut an RC (most likely tomorrow). In the meanwhile,
> I'll work on the release notes, and making sure that the CHANGES are good
> for 7.0.
>
> Anshum
>
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 8:33 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>  wrote:
>>
>> I've added SOLR-11183 to the release branch. Please let me know if someone
>> has any concerns.
>> Thanks,
>> Ishan
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
>>>
>>> I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11262
>>> I don't know if it has implications for 7.0 or not.
>>>
>>> From the issue:
>>> """This means that any code using PushWriter (via MapWriter or
>>> IteratorWriter) will be broken if one tries to use XML response
>>> format. This may easily go unnoticed if one is not using XML response
>>> format in testing (JSON or binary is frequently used)."""
>>>
>>>
>>> -Yonik
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Noble Paul  wrote:
>>> > sorry for the last minute notice. I need to fix the folowing as well.
>>> > It may take a few hours
>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11239
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Andrzej Białecki
>>> >  wrote:
>>> >> Then, if I may be so bold, I’d like to slip in SOLR-11235, which is a
>>> >> simple
>>> >> AlreadyClosedException prevention fix. Patch is ready, tests are
>>> >> passing.
>>> >>
>>> >> On 14 Aug 2017, at 19:17, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks Ab.
>>> >>
>>> >> I'll cut an RC on Wednesday, so that both, I get the time, and also
>>> >> that the
>>> >> tests get some time on Jenkins.
>>> >>
>>> >> Anshum
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:29 AM Andrzej Białecki
>>> >>  wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hi,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I’ve committed the fix for SOLR-11221 to branch_7_0 (and branch_7x
>>> >>> and
>>> >>> master).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 12 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Andrzej Białecki
>>> >>>  wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hi Anshum,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required
>>> >>> larger
>>> >>> changes than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that
>>> >>> is not
>>> >>> so well tested… I added a test that used to fail without this change,
>>> >>> and
>>> >>> manual testing confirms that metrics are now correctly reported after
>>> >>> core
>>> >>> reloads.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We could postpone this fix to 7.0.1 if there are objections, but I
>>> >>> think
>>> >>> it should go in to 7.0 - without the fix JMX reporting is surely
>>> >>> broken,
>>> >>> with the fix it’s only a possibility ;)
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 19:59, Anshum Gupta 
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks for the report Mark!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Anshum
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller 
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken.
>>> 
>>>  Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch:
>>>  http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811
>>> 
>>>  - Mark
>>> 
>>>  On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe
>>>  
>>>  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known
>>> > critical
>>> > bug.
>>> >
>>> > On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi Ab,
>>> >
>>> > How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait,
>>> > depending upon the impact, and the time required to fix it.
>>> >
>>> > Anshum
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki
>>> >  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX
>>> >> monitoring. We
>>> >> could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do
>>> >> 7.0.1, or wait
>>> >> until it’s fixed.
>>> >>
>>> >> On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller 
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can
>>> >> evaluate that for an rc as well.
>>> >>
>>> >> - Mark
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta
>>> >> 
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Good news!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after
>>> >>> giving
>>> >>> Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this
>>> >>> on
>>> >>> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope
>>> >>> shouldn't be the
>>> >>> case.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Anshum
>>> >>>
>>>

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Anshum Gupta]

Let's not commit more stuff to 7.0, unless it's a blocker as it gets hard
to track.
At this time, the only commits that would be going in to 7.0 are the ones
that Varun spoke to me about back porting.
Once that is done, I'll cut an RC (most likely tomorrow). In the meanwhile,
I'll work on the release notes, and making sure that the CHANGES are good
for 7.0.

Anshum

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 8:33 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've added SOLR-11183 to the release branch. Please let me know if someone
> has any concerns.
> Thanks,
> Ishan
>
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
>
>> I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11262
>> I don't know if it has implications for 7.0 or not.
>>
>> From the issue:
>> """This means that any code using PushWriter (via MapWriter or
>> IteratorWriter) will be broken if one tries to use XML response
>> format. This may easily go unnoticed if one is not using XML response
>> format in testing (JSON or binary is frequently used)."""
>>
>>
>> -Yonik
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Noble Paul  wrote:
>> > sorry for the last minute notice. I need to fix the folowing as well.
>> > It may take a few hours
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11239
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Andrzej Białecki
>> >  wrote:
>> >> Then, if I may be so bold, I’d like to slip in SOLR-11235, which is a
>> simple
>> >> AlreadyClosedException prevention fix. Patch is ready, tests are
>> passing.
>> >>
>> >> On 14 Aug 2017, at 19:17, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Ab.
>> >>
>> >> I'll cut an RC on Wednesday, so that both, I get the time, and also
>> that the
>> >> tests get some time on Jenkins.
>> >>
>> >> Anshum
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:29 AM Andrzej Białecki
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> I’ve committed the fix for SOLR-11221 to branch_7_0 (and branch_7x and
>> >>> master).
>> >>>
>> >>> On 12 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Andrzej Białecki
>> >>>  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Anshum,
>> >>>
>> >>> The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required
>> larger
>> >>> changes than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that
>> is not
>> >>> so well tested… I added a test that used to fail without this change,
>> and
>> >>> manual testing confirms that metrics are now correctly reported after
>> core
>> >>> reloads.
>> >>>
>> >>> We could postpone this fix to 7.0.1 if there are objections, but I
>> think
>> >>> it should go in to 7.0 - without the fix JMX reporting is surely
>> broken,
>> >>> with the fix it’s only a possibility ;)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 19:59, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for the report Mark!
>> >>>
>> >>> and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed.
>> >>>
>> >>> Anshum
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>  Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken.
>> 
>>  Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch:
>>  http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811
>> 
>>  - Mark
>> 
>>  On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe <
>> tflo...@apple.com>
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known
>> critical
>> > bug.
>> >
>> > On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Ab,
>> >
>> > How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait,
>> > depending upon the impact, and the time required to fix it.
>> >
>> > Anshum
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX
>> monitoring. We
>> >> could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do
>> 7.0.1, or wait
>> >> until it’s fixed.
>> >>
>> >> On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can
>> >> evaluate that for an rc as well.
>> >>
>> >> - Mark
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta <
>> ans...@anshumgupta.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Good news!
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after
>> giving
>> >>> Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this
>> on
>> >>> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope
>> shouldn't be the
>> >>> case.
>> >>>
>> >>> Anshum
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>  I worked through the list of issues with the
>>  "numeric-tries-to-points” label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker
>> that seemed
>>  reasonable, on the assumption that we should at a minimum give
>> clear error
>>  messages for points non-compatibility.
>> 
>>  I

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Ishan Chattopadhyaya]

I've added SOLR-11183 to the release branch. Please let me know if someone
has any concerns.
Thanks,
Ishan

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:

> I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11262
> I don't know if it has implications for 7.0 or not.
>
> From the issue:
> """This means that any code using PushWriter (via MapWriter or
> IteratorWriter) will be broken if one tries to use XML response
> format. This may easily go unnoticed if one is not using XML response
> format in testing (JSON or binary is frequently used)."""
>
>
> -Yonik
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Noble Paul  wrote:
> > sorry for the last minute notice. I need to fix the folowing as well.
> > It may take a few hours
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11239
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Andrzej Białecki
> >  wrote:
> >> Then, if I may be so bold, I’d like to slip in SOLR-11235, which is a
> simple
> >> AlreadyClosedException prevention fix. Patch is ready, tests are
> passing.
> >>
> >> On 14 Aug 2017, at 19:17, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Ab.
> >>
> >> I'll cut an RC on Wednesday, so that both, I get the time, and also
> that the
> >> tests get some time on Jenkins.
> >>
> >> Anshum
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:29 AM Andrzej Białecki
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I’ve committed the fix for SOLR-11221 to branch_7_0 (and branch_7x and
> >>> master).
> >>>
> >>> On 12 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Andrzej Białecki
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Anshum,
> >>>
> >>> The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required larger
> >>> changes than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that
> is not
> >>> so well tested… I added a test that used to fail without this change,
> and
> >>> manual testing confirms that metrics are now correctly reported after
> core
> >>> reloads.
> >>>
> >>> We could postpone this fix to 7.0.1 if there are objections, but I
> think
> >>> it should go in to 7.0 - without the fix JMX reporting is surely
> broken,
> >>> with the fix it’s only a possibility ;)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 19:59, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the report Mark!
> >>>
> >>> and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed.
> >>>
> >>> Anshum
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller 
> wrote:
> 
>  Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken.
> 
>  Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch:
>  http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811
> 
>  - Mark
> 
>  On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe <
> tflo...@apple.com>
>  wrote:
> >
> > Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known
> critical
> > bug.
> >
> > On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ab,
> >
> > How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait,
> > depending upon the impact, and the time required to fix it.
> >
> > Anshum
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX
> monitoring. We
> >> could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do 7.0.1,
> or wait
> >> until it’s fixed.
> >>
> >> On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can
> >> evaluate that for an rc as well.
> >>
> >> - Mark
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta  >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Good news!
> >>>
> >>> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after
> giving
> >>> Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this
> on
> >>> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope
> shouldn't be the
> >>> case.
> >>>
> >>> Anshum
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe 
> wrote:
> 
>  I worked through the list of issues with the
>  "numeric-tries-to-points” label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker
> that seemed
>  reasonable, on the assumption that we should at a minimum give
> clear error
>  messages for points non-compatibility.
> 
>  If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m
>  willing to discuss on the issues.
> 
>  I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I
>  would welcome assistance in clearing them up.
> 
>  Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of
> which
>  there are currently 12:
> 
> 
>   SOLR,LUCENE)+AND+fixVersion=7.0+AND+priority=Blocker+AND+
> resolution=Unresolved>
> 
>  --
>  Steve
>  www.lucidworks.com
> 
> >

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Yonik Seeley]

I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11262
I don't know if it has implications for 7.0 or not.

>From the issue:
"""This means that any code using PushWriter (via MapWriter or
IteratorWriter) will be broken if one tries to use XML response
format. This may easily go unnoticed if one is not using XML response
format in testing (JSON or binary is frequently used)."""


-Yonik


On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Noble Paul  wrote:
> sorry for the last minute notice. I need to fix the folowing as well.
> It may take a few hours
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11239
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Andrzej Białecki
>  wrote:
>> Then, if I may be so bold, I’d like to slip in SOLR-11235, which is a simple
>> AlreadyClosedException prevention fix. Patch is ready, tests are passing.
>>
>> On 14 Aug 2017, at 19:17, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Ab.
>>
>> I'll cut an RC on Wednesday, so that both, I get the time, and also that the
>> tests get some time on Jenkins.
>>
>> Anshum
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:29 AM Andrzej Białecki
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I’ve committed the fix for SOLR-11221 to branch_7_0 (and branch_7x and
>>> master).
>>>
>>> On 12 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Andrzej Białecki
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Anshum,
>>>
>>> The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required larger
>>> changes than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that is not
>>> so well tested… I added a test that used to fail without this change, and
>>> manual testing confirms that metrics are now correctly reported after core
>>> reloads.
>>>
>>> We could postpone this fix to 7.0.1 if there are objections, but I think
>>> it should go in to 7.0 - without the fix JMX reporting is surely broken,
>>> with the fix it’s only a possibility ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 19:59, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the report Mark!
>>>
>>> and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed.
>>>
>>> Anshum
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller  wrote:

 Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken.

 Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch:
 http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811

 - Mark

 On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe 
 wrote:
>
> Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known critical
> bug.
>
> On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Ab,
>
> How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait,
> depending upon the impact, and the time required to fix it.
>
> Anshum
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki
>  wrote:
>>
>> I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX monitoring. We
>> could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do 7.0.1, or 
>> wait
>> until it’s fixed.
>>
>> On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller  wrote:
>>
>> I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can
>> evaluate that for an rc as well.
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Good news!
>>>
>>> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving
>>> Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this on
>>> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope shouldn't 
>>> be the
>>> case.
>>>
>>> Anshum
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe  wrote:

 I worked through the list of issues with the
 "numeric-tries-to-points” label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that 
 seemed
 reasonable, on the assumption that we should at a minimum give clear 
 error
 messages for points non-compatibility.

 If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m
 willing to discuss on the issues.

 I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I
 would welcome assistance in clearing them up.

 Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which
 there are currently 12:


 

 --
 Steve
 www.lucidworks.com

 > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta 
 > wrote:
 >
 > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a
 > spare cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
 >
 > -Anshum
 >
 > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett
 >  wrote:
 > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all
 > Trie*
 > fields as depre

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Noble Paul]

sorry for the last minute notice. I need to fix the folowing as well.
It may take a few hours
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11239

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Andrzej Białecki
 wrote:
> Then, if I may be so bold, I’d like to slip in SOLR-11235, which is a simple
> AlreadyClosedException prevention fix. Patch is ready, tests are passing.
>
> On 14 Aug 2017, at 19:17, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
>
> Thanks Ab.
>
> I'll cut an RC on Wednesday, so that both, I get the time, and also that the
> tests get some time on Jenkins.
>
> Anshum
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:29 AM Andrzej Białecki
>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I’ve committed the fix for SOLR-11221 to branch_7_0 (and branch_7x and
>> master).
>>
>> On 12 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Andrzej Białecki
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Anshum,
>>
>> The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required larger
>> changes than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that is not
>> so well tested… I added a test that used to fail without this change, and
>> manual testing confirms that metrics are now correctly reported after core
>> reloads.
>>
>> We could postpone this fix to 7.0.1 if there are objections, but I think
>> it should go in to 7.0 - without the fix JMX reporting is surely broken,
>> with the fix it’s only a possibility ;)
>>
>>
>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 19:59, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the report Mark!
>>
>> and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed.
>>
>> Anshum
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller  wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken.
>>>
>>> Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch:
>>> http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811
>>>
>>> - Mark
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe 
>>> wrote:

 Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known critical
 bug.

 On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta 
 wrote:

 Hi Ab,

 How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait,
 depending upon the impact, and the time required to fix it.

 Anshum

 On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki
  wrote:
>
> I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX monitoring. We
> could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do 7.0.1, or 
> wait
> until it’s fixed.
>
> On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller  wrote:
>
> I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can
> evaluate that for an rc as well.
>
> - Mark
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>>
>> Good news!
>>
>> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving
>> Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this on
>> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope shouldn't be 
>> the
>> case.
>>
>> Anshum
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe  wrote:
>>>
>>> I worked through the list of issues with the
>>> "numeric-tries-to-points” label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that 
>>> seemed
>>> reasonable, on the assumption that we should at a minimum give clear 
>>> error
>>> messages for points non-compatibility.
>>>
>>> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m
>>> willing to discuss on the issues.
>>>
>>> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I
>>> would welcome assistance in clearing them up.
>>>
>>> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which
>>> there are currently 12:
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> --
>>> Steve
>>> www.lucidworks.com
>>>
>>> > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a
>>> > spare cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
>>> >
>>> > -Anshum
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett
>>> >  wrote:
>>> > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all
>>> > Trie*
>>> > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As
>>> > he
>>> > noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
>>> > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+
>>> > more
>>> > weeks?
>>> >
>>> > Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
>>> > PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers
>>> > for
>>> > 7.0. I think they all share a label:
>>> >
>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-poin

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Andrzej Białecki]

Then, if I may be so bold, I’d like to slip in SOLR-11235, which is a simple 
AlreadyClosedException prevention fix. Patch is ready, tests are passing.

> On 14 Aug 2017, at 19:17, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Ab.
> 
> I'll cut an RC on Wednesday, so that both, I get the time, and also that the 
> tests get some time on Jenkins.
> 
> Anshum
> 
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:29 AM Andrzej Białecki 
> mailto:andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com>> 
> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I’ve committed the fix for SOLR-11221 to branch_7_0 (and branch_7x and 
> master).
> 
>> On 12 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Andrzej Białecki > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Anshum,
>> 
>> The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required larger 
>> changes than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that is not 
>> so well tested… I added a test that used to fail without this change, and 
>> manual testing confirms that metrics are now correctly reported after core 
>> reloads.
>> 
>> We could postpone this fix to 7.0.1 if there are objections, but I think it 
>> should go in to 7.0 - without the fix JMX reporting is surely broken, with 
>> the fix it’s only a possibility ;)
>> 
>> 
>>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 19:59, Anshum Gupta >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the report Mark! 
>>> 
>>> and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed.
>>> 
>>> Anshum
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller >> > wrote:
>>> Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken.
>>> 
>>> Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch: 
>>> http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - Mark
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe >> > wrote:
>>> Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known critical bug.
>>> 
 On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta >>> > wrote:
 
 Hi Ab,
 
 How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait, depending 
 upon the impact, and the time required to fix it.
 
 Anshum
 
 On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki 
 mailto:andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com>> 
 wrote:
 I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX monitoring. We 
 could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do 7.0.1, or 
 wait until it’s fixed.
 
> On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller  > wrote:
> 
> I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can evaluate 
> that for an rc as well.
> 
> - Mark
> 
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta  > wrote:
> Good news! 
> 
> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving 
> Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this on 
> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope shouldn't be 
> the case.
> 
> Anshum
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe  > wrote:
> I worked through the list of issues with the "numeric-tries-to-points” 
> label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that seemed reasonable, on the 
> assumption that we should at a minimum give clear error messages for 
> points non-compatibility.
> 
> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m willing 
> to discuss on the issues.
> 
> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I would 
> welcome assistance in clearing them up.
> 
> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which 
> there are currently 12:
> 
>   
> >
> 
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com 
> 
> > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta  > > wrote:
> >
> > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a 
> > spare cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
> >
> > -Anshum
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett 
> > mailto:casstarg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie*
> > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he
> > noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
> > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
> > weeks?
> >
> > Now would also b

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Anshum Gupta]

Thanks Ab.

I'll cut an RC on Wednesday, so that both, I get the time, and also that
the tests get some time on Jenkins.

Anshum

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:29 AM Andrzej Białecki <
andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I’ve committed the fix for SOLR-11221 to branch_7_0 (and branch_7x and
> master).
>
> On 12 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Andrzej Białecki <
> andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Anshum,
>
> The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required larger
> changes than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that is not
> so well tested… I added a test that used to fail without this change, and
> manual testing confirms that metrics are now correctly reported after core
> reloads.
>
> We could postpone this fix to 7.0.1 if there are objections, but I think
> it should go in to 7.0 - without the fix JMX reporting is surely broken,
> with the fix it’s only a possibility ;)
>
>
> On 11 Aug 2017, at 19:59, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
>
> Thanks for the report Mark!
>
> and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed.
>
> Anshum
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller  wrote:
>
>> Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken.
>>
>> Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch:
>> http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known critical
>>> bug.
>>>
>>> On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ab,
>>>
>>> How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait,
>>> depending upon the impact, and the time required to fix it.
>>>
>>> Anshum
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki <
>>> andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> wrote:
>>>
 I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX monitoring. We
 could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do 7.0.1, or wait
 until it’s fixed.

 On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller  wrote:

 I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can
 evaluate that for an rc as well.

 - Mark

 On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta 
 wrote:

> Good news!
>
> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving
> Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this on
> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope shouldn't be
> the case.
>
> Anshum
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe  wrote:
>
>> I worked through the list of issues with the
>> "numeric-tries-to-points” label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that 
>> seemed
>> reasonable, on the assumption that we should at a minimum give clear 
>> error
>> messages for points non-compatibility.
>>
>> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m
>> willing to discuss on the issues.
>>
>> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I
>> would welcome assistance in clearing them up.
>>
>> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which
>> there are currently 12:
>>
>> <
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+in+(SOLR,LUCENE)+AND+fixVersion=7.0+AND+priority=Blocker+AND+resolution=Unresolved
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Steve
>> www.lucidworks.com
>>
>> > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a
>> spare cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
>> >
>> > -Anshum
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett <
>> casstarg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all
>> Trie*
>> > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As
>> he
>> > noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
>> > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
>> > weeks?
>> >
>> > Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
>> > PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
>> > 7.0. I think they all share a label:
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
>> >  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to
>> deprecate
>> > > : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release
>> until
>> > > : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas
>> if we
>> > > : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix
>> the tests
>> > > : and

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Andrzej Białecki]

Hi,

I’ve committed the fix for SOLR-11221 to branch_7_0 (and branch_7x and master).

> On 12 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Andrzej Białecki  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Anshum,
> 
> The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required larger 
> changes than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that is not 
> so well tested… I added a test that used to fail without this change, and 
> manual testing confirms that metrics are now correctly reported after core 
> reloads.
> 
> We could postpone this fix to 7.0.1 if there are objections, but I think it 
> should go in to 7.0 - without the fix JMX reporting is surely broken, with 
> the fix it’s only a possibility ;)
> 
> 
>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 19:59, Anshum Gupta > > wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for the report Mark! 
>> 
>> and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed.
>> 
>> Anshum
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller > > wrote:
>> Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken.
>> 
>> Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch: 
>> http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811 
>> 
>> 
>> - Mark
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe > > wrote:
>> Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known critical bug.
>> 
>>> On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Ab,
>>> 
>>> How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait, depending 
>>> upon the impact, and the time required to fix it.
>>> 
>>> Anshum
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki 
>>> mailto:andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com>> 
>>> wrote:
>>> I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX monitoring. We 
>>> could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do 7.0.1, or wait 
>>> until it’s fixed.
>>> 
 On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller >>> > wrote:
 
 I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can evaluate 
 that for an rc as well.
 
 - Mark
 
 On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta >>> > wrote:
 Good news! 
 
 I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving 
 Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this on 
 Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope shouldn't be 
 the case.
 
 Anshum
 
 
 On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe >>> > wrote:
 I worked through the list of issues with the "numeric-tries-to-points” 
 label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that seemed reasonable, on the 
 assumption that we should at a minimum give clear error messages for 
 points non-compatibility.
 
 If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m willing 
 to discuss on the issues.
 
 I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I would 
 welcome assistance in clearing them up.
 
 Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which there 
 are currently 12:
 
 >
 
 --
 Steve
 www.lucidworks.com 
 
 > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta >>> > > wrote:
 >
 > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a 
 > spare cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
 >
 > -Anshum
 >
 > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett 
 > mailto:casstarg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
 > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie*
 > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he
 > noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
 > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
 > weeks?
 >
 > Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
 > PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
 > 7.0. I think they all share a label:
 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
 >  
 > 
 >
 > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
 > mailto:hossman_luc...@fucit.org>> wrote:
 > >
 > > : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to deprecate
 > > 

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Anshum Gupta]

Thanks Ab,

Let's get this in, and give it a couple of days on Jenkins (or get a
BeastIt report from Mark).

I'm +1 on releasing with this, and actually wouldn't want to release
without the fix.

Anshum

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:20 PM Andrzej Białecki <
andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> wrote:

> Hi Anshum,
>
> The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required larger
> changes than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that is not
> so well tested… I added a test that used to fail without this change, and
> manual testing confirms that metrics are now correctly reported after core
> reloads.
>
> We could postpone this fix to 7.0.1 if there are objections, but I think
> it should go in to 7.0 - without the fix JMX reporting is surely broken,
> with the fix it’s only a possibility ;)
>
>
> On 11 Aug 2017, at 19:59, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
>
> Thanks for the report Mark!
>
> and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed.
>
> Anshum
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller  wrote:
>
>> Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken.
>>
>> Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch:
>> http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known critical
>>> bug.
>>>
>>> On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ab,
>>>
>>> How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait,
>>> depending upon the impact, and the time required to fix it.
>>>
>>> Anshum
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki <
>>> andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> wrote:
>>>
 I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX monitoring. We
 could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do 7.0.1, or wait
 until it’s fixed.

 On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller  wrote:

 I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can
 evaluate that for an rc as well.

 - Mark

 On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta 
 wrote:

> Good news!
>
> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving
> Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this on
> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope shouldn't be
> the case.
>
> Anshum
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe  wrote:
>
>> I worked through the list of issues with the
>> "numeric-tries-to-points” label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that 
>> seemed
>> reasonable, on the assumption that we should at a minimum give clear 
>> error
>> messages for points non-compatibility.
>>
>> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m
>> willing to discuss on the issues.
>>
>> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I
>> would welcome assistance in clearing them up.
>>
>> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which
>> there are currently 12:
>>
>> <
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+in+(SOLR,LUCENE)+AND+fixVersion=7.0+AND+priority=Blocker+AND+resolution=Unresolved
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Steve
>> www.lucidworks.com
>>
>> > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a
>> spare cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
>> >
>> > -Anshum
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett <
>> casstarg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all
>> Trie*
>> > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As
>> he
>> > noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
>> > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
>> > weeks?
>> >
>> > Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
>> > PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
>> > 7.0. I think they all share a label:
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
>> >  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to
>> deprecate
>> > > : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release
>> until
>> > > : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas
>> if we
>> > > : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix
>> the tests
>> > > : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for
>> users. And
>> > > : to get all that done soon

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Andrzej Białecki]

Hi Anshum,

The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required larger changes 
than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that is not so well 
tested… I added a test that used to fail without this change, and manual 
testing confirms that metrics are now correctly reported after core reloads.

We could postpone this fix to 7.0.1 if there are objections, but I think it 
should go in to 7.0 - without the fix JMX reporting is surely broken, with the 
fix it’s only a possibility ;)


> On 11 Aug 2017, at 19:59, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the report Mark! 
> 
> and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed.
> 
> Anshum
> 
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller  > wrote:
> Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken.
> 
> Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch: 
> http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811 
> 
> 
> - Mark
> 
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe  > wrote:
> Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known critical bug.
> 
>> On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Ab,
>> 
>> How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait, depending 
>> upon the impact, and the time required to fix it.
>> 
>> Anshum
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki 
>> mailto:andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX monitoring. We 
>> could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do 7.0.1, or wait 
>> until it’s fixed.
>> 
>>> On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can evaluate 
>>> that for an rc as well.
>>> 
>>> - Mark
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta >> > wrote:
>>> Good news! 
>>> 
>>> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving 
>>> Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this on 
>>> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope shouldn't be 
>>> the case.
>>> 
>>> Anshum
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe >> > wrote:
>>> I worked through the list of issues with the "numeric-tries-to-points” 
>>> label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that seemed reasonable, on the 
>>> assumption that we should at a minimum give clear error messages for points 
>>> non-compatibility.
>>> 
>>> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m willing 
>>> to discuss on the issues.
>>> 
>>> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I would 
>>> welcome assistance in clearing them up.
>>> 
>>> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which there 
>>> are currently 12:
>>> 
>>> >>  
>>> >
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Steve
>>> www.lucidworks.com 
>>> 
>>> > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta >> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a spare 
>>> > cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
>>> >
>>> > -Anshum
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett >> > > wrote:
>>> > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie*
>>> > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he
>>> > noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
>>> > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
>>> > weeks?
>>> >
>>> > Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
>>> > PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
>>> > 7.0. I think they all share a label:
>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
>>> >  
>>> > 
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
>>> > mailto:hossman_luc...@fucit.org>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to deprecate
>>> > > : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release until
>>> > > : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if we
>>> > > : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the tests
>>> > > : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users. And
>>> > > 

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Mark Miller]

bq. Thanks for the report Mark!

I hope to start doing this for all the releases and keep that info around a
while so that we can make a simple comparison release to release on top of
like a regularly weekly report.

- Mark

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:59 PM Anshum Gupta  wrote:

> Thanks for the report Mark!
>
> and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed.
>
> Anshum
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller  wrote:
>
>> Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken.
>>
>> Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch:
>> http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known critical
>>> bug.
>>>
>>> On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ab,
>>>
>>> How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait,
>>> depending upon the impact, and the time required to fix it.
>>>
>>> Anshum
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki <
>>> andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> wrote:
>>>
 I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX monitoring. We
 could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do 7.0.1, or wait
 until it’s fixed.

 On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller  wrote:

 I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can
 evaluate that for an rc as well.

 - Mark

 On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta 
 wrote:

> Good news!
>
> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving
> Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this on
> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope shouldn't be
> the case.
>
> Anshum
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe  wrote:
>
>> I worked through the list of issues with the
>> "numeric-tries-to-points” label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that 
>> seemed
>> reasonable, on the assumption that we should at a minimum give clear 
>> error
>> messages for points non-compatibility.
>>
>> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m
>> willing to discuss on the issues.
>>
>> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I
>> would welcome assistance in clearing them up.
>>
>> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which
>> there are currently 12:
>>
>> <
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+in+(SOLR,LUCENE)+AND+fixVersion=7.0+AND+priority=Blocker+AND+resolution=Unresolved
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Steve
>> www.lucidworks.com
>>
>> > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a
>> spare cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
>> >
>> > -Anshum
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett <
>> casstarg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all
>> Trie*
>> > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As
>> he
>> > noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
>> > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
>> > weeks?
>> >
>> > Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
>> > PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
>> > 7.0. I think they all share a label:
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
>> >  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to
>> deprecate
>> > > : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release
>> until
>> > > : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas
>> if we
>> > > : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix
>> the tests
>> > > : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for
>> users. And
>> > > : to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more
>> volunteers.
>> > >
>> > > I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how
>> people can
>> > > help out...
>> > >
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -Hoss
>> > > http://www.lucidworks.com/
>> > >
>> > >
>> -
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>> > >
>> >

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Anshum Gupta]

Thanks for the report Mark!

and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed.

Anshum

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller  wrote:

> Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken.
>
> Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch:
> http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811
>
> - Mark
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe 
> wrote:
>
>> Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known critical
>> bug.
>>
>> On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ab,
>>
>> How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait,
>> depending upon the impact, and the time required to fix it.
>>
>> Anshum
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki <
>> andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX monitoring. We
>>> could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do 7.0.1, or wait
>>> until it’s fixed.
>>>
>>> On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller  wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can
>>> evaluate that for an rc as well.
>>>
>>> - Mark
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Good news!

 I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving
 Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this on
 Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope shouldn't be
 the case.

 Anshum


 On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe  wrote:

> I worked through the list of issues with the "numeric-tries-to-points”
> label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that seemed reasonable, on the
> assumption that we should at a minimum give clear error messages for 
> points
> non-compatibility.
>
> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m
> willing to discuss on the issues.
>
> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I would
> welcome assistance in clearing them up.
>
> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which
> there are currently 12:
>
> <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+in+(SOLR,LUCENE)+AND+fixVersion=7.0+AND+priority=Blocker+AND+resolution=Unresolved
> >
>
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com
>
> > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> >
> > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a
> spare cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
> >
> > -Anshum
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett <
> casstarg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie*
> > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he
> > noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
> > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
> > weeks?
> >
> > Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
> > PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
> > 7.0. I think they all share a label:
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to
> deprecate
> > > : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release
> until
> > > : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if
> we
> > > : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the
> tests
> > > : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users.
> And
> > > : to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more
> volunteers.
> > >
> > > I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how
> people can
> > > help out...
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Hoss
> > > http://www.lucidworks.com/
> > >
> > >
> -
> > > 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: 7.0 Release Update

[Mark Miller]

I'll do a report for Lucene as well before long by the way. Have not made a
config for it just yet.

- Mark

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:49 PM Mark Miller  wrote:

> Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken.
>
> Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch:
> http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811
>
> - Mark
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe 
> wrote:
>
>> Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known critical
>> bug.
>>
>> On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ab,
>>
>> How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait,
>> depending upon the impact, and the time required to fix it.
>>
>> Anshum
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki <
>> andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX monitoring. We
>>> could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do 7.0.1, or wait
>>> until it’s fixed.
>>>
>>> On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller  wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can
>>> evaluate that for an rc as well.
>>>
>>> - Mark
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Good news!

 I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving
 Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this on
 Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope shouldn't be
 the case.

 Anshum


 On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe  wrote:

> I worked through the list of issues with the "numeric-tries-to-points”
> label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that seemed reasonable, on the
> assumption that we should at a minimum give clear error messages for 
> points
> non-compatibility.
>
> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m
> willing to discuss on the issues.
>
> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I would
> welcome assistance in clearing them up.
>
> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which
> there are currently 12:
>
> <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+in+(SOLR,LUCENE)+AND+fixVersion=7.0+AND+priority=Blocker+AND+resolution=Unresolved
> >
>
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com
>
> > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> >
> > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a
> spare cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
> >
> > -Anshum
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett <
> casstarg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie*
> > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he
> > noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
> > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
> > weeks?
> >
> > Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
> > PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
> > 7.0. I think they all share a label:
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to
> deprecate
> > > : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release
> until
> > > : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if
> we
> > > : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the
> tests
> > > : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users.
> And
> > > : to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more
> volunteers.
> > >
> > > I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how
> people can
> > > help out...
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Hoss
> > > http://www.lucidworks.com/
> > >
> > >
> -
> > > 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...@luce

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Mark Miller]

Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken.

Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch:
http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811

- Mark

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe 
wrote:

> Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known critical
> bug.
>
> On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
>
> Hi Ab,
>
> How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait, depending
> upon the impact, and the time required to fix it.
>
> Anshum
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki <
> andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> wrote:
>
>> I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX monitoring. We
>> could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do 7.0.1, or wait
>> until it’s fixed.
>>
>> On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller  wrote:
>>
>> I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can evaluate
>> that for an rc as well.
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Good news!
>>>
>>> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving
>>> Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this on
>>> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope shouldn't be
>>> the case.
>>>
>>> Anshum
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe  wrote:
>>>
 I worked through the list of issues with the "numeric-tries-to-points”
 label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that seemed reasonable, on the
 assumption that we should at a minimum give clear error messages for points
 non-compatibility.

 If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m
 willing to discuss on the issues.

 I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I would
 welcome assistance in clearing them up.

 Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which
 there are currently 12:

 <
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+in+(SOLR,LUCENE)+AND+fixVersion=7.0+AND+priority=Blocker+AND+resolution=Unresolved
 >

 --
 Steve
 www.lucidworks.com

 > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta 
 wrote:
 >
 > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a
 spare cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
 >
 > -Anshum
 >
 > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett <
 casstarg...@gmail.com> wrote:
 > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie*
 > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he
 > noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
 > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
 > weeks?
 >
 > Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
 > PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
 > 7.0. I think they all share a label:
 >
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
 >
 > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
 >  wrote:
 > >
 > > : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to
 deprecate
 > > : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release
 until
 > > : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if
 we
 > > : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the
 tests
 > > : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users.
 And
 > > : to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more
 volunteers.
 > >
 > > I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how
 people can
 > > help out...
 > >
 > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > -Hoss
 > > http://www.lucidworks.com/
 > >
 > >
 -
 > > 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

 --
>> - Mark
>> about.me/markrmiller
>>
>>
>>
> --
- Mark
about.me/markrmiller

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Tomas Fernandez Lobbe]

Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known critical bug.

> On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> 
> Hi Ab,
> 
> How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait, depending 
> upon the impact, and the time required to fix it.
> 
> Anshum
> 
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki 
> mailto:andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com>> 
> wrote:
> I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX monitoring. We could 
> either release with “known issues” and then quickly do 7.0.1, or wait until 
> it’s fixed.
> 
>> On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller > > wrote:
>> 
>> I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can evaluate 
>> that for an rc as well.
>> 
>> - Mark
>> 
>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta > > wrote:
>> Good news! 
>> 
>> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving 
>> Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this on 
>> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope shouldn't be the 
>> case.
>> 
>> Anshum
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe > > wrote:
>> I worked through the list of issues with the "numeric-tries-to-points” label 
>> and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that seemed reasonable, on the assumption 
>> that we should at a minimum give clear error messages for points 
>> non-compatibility.
>> 
>> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m willing to 
>> discuss on the issues.
>> 
>> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I would 
>> welcome assistance in clearing them up.
>> 
>> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which there 
>> are currently 12:
>> 
>> >  
>> >
>> 
>> --
>> Steve
>> www.lucidworks.com 
>> 
>> > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a spare 
>> > cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
>> >
>> > -Anshum
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett > > > wrote:
>> > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie*
>> > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he
>> > noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
>> > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
>> > weeks?
>> >
>> > Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
>> > PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
>> > 7.0. I think they all share a label:
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
>> >  
>> > 
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
>> > mailto:hossman_luc...@fucit.org>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to deprecate
>> > > : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release until
>> > > : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if we
>> > > : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the tests
>> > > : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users. And
>> > > : to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more volunteers.
>> > >
>> > > I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how people can
>> > > help out...
>> > >
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807 
>> > > 
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -Hoss
>> > > http://www.lucidworks.com/ 
>> > >
>> > > -
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org 
>> > > 
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org 
>> > > 
>> > >
>> >
>> > -
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org 
>> > 
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org 
>> > 
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org 
>> 
>> For 

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Anshum Gupta]

Hi Ab,

How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait, depending
upon the impact, and the time required to fix it.

Anshum

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki <
andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> wrote:

> I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX monitoring. We
> could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do 7.0.1, or wait
> until it’s fixed.
>
> On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller  wrote:
>
> I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can evaluate
> that for an rc as well.
>
> - Mark
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>
>> Good news!
>>
>> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving
>> Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this on
>> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope shouldn't be
>> the case.
>>
>> Anshum
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe  wrote:
>>
>>> I worked through the list of issues with the "numeric-tries-to-points”
>>> label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that seemed reasonable, on the
>>> assumption that we should at a minimum give clear error messages for points
>>> non-compatibility.
>>>
>>> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m
>>> willing to discuss on the issues.
>>>
>>> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I would
>>> welcome assistance in clearing them up.
>>>
>>> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which
>>> there are currently 12:
>>>
>>> <
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+in+(SOLR,LUCENE)+AND+fixVersion=7.0+AND+priority=Blocker+AND+resolution=Unresolved
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Steve
>>> www.lucidworks.com
>>>
>>> > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a
>>> spare cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
>>> >
>>> > -Anshum
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett <
>>> casstarg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie*
>>> > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he
>>> > noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
>>> > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
>>> > weeks?
>>> >
>>> > Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
>>> > PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
>>> > 7.0. I think they all share a label:
>>> >
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
>>> >  wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to
>>> deprecate
>>> > > : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release
>>> until
>>> > > : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if we
>>> > > : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the
>>> tests
>>> > > : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users.
>>> And
>>> > > : to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more volunteers.
>>> > >
>>> > > I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how people
>>> can
>>> > > help out...
>>> > >
>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > -Hoss
>>> > > http://www.lucidworks.com/
>>> > >
>>> > > -
>>> > > 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
>>>
>>> --
> - Mark
> about.me/markrmiller
>
>
>

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Andrzej Białecki]

I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX monitoring. We could 
either release with “known issues” and then quickly do 7.0.1, or wait until 
it’s fixed.

> On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller  wrote:
> 
> I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can evaluate 
> that for an rc as well.
> 
> - Mark
> 
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta  > wrote:
> Good news! 
> 
> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving Jenkins 
> a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this on 
> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope shouldn't be the 
> case.
> 
> Anshum
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe  > wrote:
> I worked through the list of issues with the "numeric-tries-to-points” label 
> and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that seemed reasonable, on the assumption 
> that we should at a minimum give clear error messages for points 
> non-compatibility.
> 
> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m willing to 
> discuss on the issues.
> 
> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I would 
> welcome assistance in clearing them up.
> 
> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which there 
> are currently 12:
> 
>   
> >
> 
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com 
> 
> > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta  > > wrote:
> >
> > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a spare 
> > cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
> >
> > -Anshum
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett  > > wrote:
> > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie*
> > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he
> > noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
> > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
> > weeks?
> >
> > Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
> > PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
> > 7.0. I think they all share a label:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
> >  
> > 
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
> > mailto:hossman_luc...@fucit.org>> wrote:
> > >
> > > : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to deprecate
> > > : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release until
> > > : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if we
> > > : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the tests
> > > : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users. And
> > > : to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more volunteers.
> > >
> > > I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how people can
> > > help out...
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807 
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Hoss
> > > http://www.lucidworks.com/ 
> > >
> > > -
> > > 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 
> 
> 
> -- 
> - Mark 
> about.me/markrmiller 

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Mark Miller]

I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can evaluate
that for an rc as well.

- Mark

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta  wrote:

> Good news!
>
> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving
> Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this on
> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope shouldn't be
> the case.
>
> Anshum
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe  wrote:
>
>> I worked through the list of issues with the "numeric-tries-to-points”
>> label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that seemed reasonable, on the
>> assumption that we should at a minimum give clear error messages for points
>> non-compatibility.
>>
>> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m willing
>> to discuss on the issues.
>>
>> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I would
>> welcome assistance in clearing them up.
>>
>> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which
>> there are currently 12:
>>
>> <
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+in+(SOLR,LUCENE)+AND+fixVersion=7.0+AND+priority=Blocker+AND+resolution=Unresolved
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Steve
>> www.lucidworks.com
>>
>> > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a
>> spare cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
>> >
>> > -Anshum
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett <
>> casstarg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie*
>> > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he
>> > noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
>> > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
>> > weeks?
>> >
>> > Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
>> > PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
>> > 7.0. I think they all share a label:
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
>> >  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to
>> deprecate
>> > > : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release
>> until
>> > > : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if we
>> > > : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the
>> tests
>> > > : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users. And
>> > > : to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more volunteers.
>> > >
>> > > I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how people
>> can
>> > > help out...
>> > >
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -Hoss
>> > > http://www.lucidworks.com/
>> > >
>> > > -
>> > > 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
>>
>> --
- Mark
about.me/markrmiller

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Anshum Gupta]

Good news!

I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving
Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this on
Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope shouldn't be
the case.

Anshum

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe  wrote:

> I worked through the list of issues with the "numeric-tries-to-points”
> label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that seemed reasonable, on the
> assumption that we should at a minimum give clear error messages for points
> non-compatibility.
>
> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m willing
> to discuss on the issues.
>
> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I would
> welcome assistance in clearing them up.
>
> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which there
> are currently 12:
>
> <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+in+(SOLR,LUCENE)+AND+fixVersion=7.0+AND+priority=Blocker+AND+resolution=Unresolved
> >
>
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com
>
> > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> >
> > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a
> spare cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
> >
> > -Anshum
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett <
> casstarg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie*
> > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he
> > noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
> > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
> > weeks?
> >
> > Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
> > PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
> > 7.0. I think they all share a label:
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to deprecate
> > > : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release until
> > > : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if we
> > > : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the
> tests
> > > : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users. And
> > > : to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more volunteers.
> > >
> > > I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how people
> can
> > > help out...
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Hoss
> > > http://www.lucidworks.com/
> > >
> > > -
> > > 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: 7.0 Release Update

[Anshum Gupta]

Thanks Steve, seems like we're really close. I'll be cutting an RC a couple
of days after the last blocker gets resolved, just to give Jenkins some
time.

Anshum

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:44 PM Steve Rowe  wrote:

> Oh, SOLR-11183 is also a Blocker, I just put 7.0 as fixVersion so that it
> will show up on the 7.0 Blockers JIRA query.
>
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com
>
> > On Aug 4, 2017, at 8:28 PM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> >
> > I’ve finished up addressing blockers.  The only remaining one is
> SOLR-10939: JoinQParser gives incorrect results with numeric PointsFields,
> which Yonik is working on.
> >
> > --
> > Steve
> > www.lucidworks.com
> >
> >> On Jul 25, 2017, at 7:02 PM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> >>
> >> I worked through the list of issues with the "numeric-tries-to-points”
> label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that seemed reasonable, on the
> assumption that we should at a minimum give clear error messages for points
> non-compatibility.
> >>
> >> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m
> willing to discuss on the issues.
> >>
> >> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I would
> welcome assistance in clearing them up.
> >>
> >> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which
> there are currently 12:
> >>
> >> <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+in+(SOLR,LUCENE)+AND+fixVersion=7.0+AND+priority=Blocker+AND+resolution=Unresolved
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Steve
> >> www.lucidworks.com
> >>
> >>> On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a
> spare cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
> >>>
> >>> -Anshum
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett <
> casstarg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie*
> >>> fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he
> >>> noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
> >>> anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
> >>> weeks?
> >>>
> >>> Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
> >>> PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
> >>> 7.0. I think they all share a label:
> >>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
> >>>  wrote:
> 
>  : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to
> deprecate
>  : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release
> until
>  : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if we
>  : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the
> tests
>  : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users. And
>  : to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more volunteers.
> 
>  I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how people
> can
>  help out...
> 
>  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807
> 
> 
> 
>  -Hoss
>  http://www.lucidworks.com/
> 
>  -
>  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: 7.0 Release Update

[Steve Rowe]

Oh, SOLR-11183 is also a Blocker, I just put 7.0 as fixVersion so that it will 
show up on the 7.0 Blockers JIRA query.

--
Steve
www.lucidworks.com

> On Aug 4, 2017, at 8:28 PM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> 
> I’ve finished up addressing blockers.  The only remaining one is SOLR-10939: 
> JoinQParser gives incorrect results with numeric PointsFields, which Yonik is 
> working on.
> 
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com
> 
>> On Jul 25, 2017, at 7:02 PM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
>> 
>> I worked through the list of issues with the "numeric-tries-to-points” label 
>> and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that seemed reasonable, on the assumption 
>> that we should at a minimum give clear error messages for points 
>> non-compatibility.
>> 
>> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m willing to 
>> discuss on the issues.
>> 
>> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I would 
>> welcome assistance in clearing them up.
>> 
>> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which there 
>> are currently 12:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Steve
>> www.lucidworks.com
>> 
>>> On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a spare 
>>> cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
>>> 
>>> -Anshum
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett  
>>> wrote:
>>> I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie*
>>> fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he
>>> noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
>>> anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
>>> weeks?
>>> 
>>> Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
>>> PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
>>> 7.0. I think they all share a label:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
>>>  wrote:
 
 : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to deprecate
 : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release until
 : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if we
 : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the tests
 : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users. And
 : to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more volunteers.
 
 I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how people can
 help out...
 
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807
 
 
 
 -Hoss
 http://www.lucidworks.com/
 
 -
 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: 7.0 Release Update

[Steve Rowe]

I’ve finished up addressing blockers.  The only remaining one is SOLR-10939: 
JoinQParser gives incorrect results with numeric PointsFields, which Yonik is 
working on.

--
Steve
www.lucidworks.com

> On Jul 25, 2017, at 7:02 PM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> 
> I worked through the list of issues with the "numeric-tries-to-points” label 
> and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that seemed reasonable, on the assumption 
> that we should at a minimum give clear error messages for points 
> non-compatibility.
> 
> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m willing to 
> discuss on the issues.
> 
> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I would 
> welcome assistance in clearing them up.
> 
> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which there 
> are currently 12:
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com
> 
>> On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
>> 
>> I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a spare 
>> cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
>> 
>> -Anshum
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett  
>> wrote:
>> I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie*
>> fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he
>> noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
>> anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
>> weeks?
>> 
>> Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
>> PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
>> 7.0. I think they all share a label:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to deprecate
>>> : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release until
>>> : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if we
>>> : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the tests
>>> : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users. And
>>> : to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more volunteers.
>>> 
>>> I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how people can
>>> help out...
>>> 
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Hoss
>>> http://www.lucidworks.com/
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 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: 7.0 Release Update

[Steve Rowe]

I worked through the list of issues with the "numeric-tries-to-points” label 
and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that seemed reasonable, on the assumption that 
we should at a minimum give clear error messages for points non-compatibility.

If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m willing to 
discuss on the issues.

I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now.  I would welcome 
assistance in clearing them up.

Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of which there are 
currently 12:



--
Steve
www.lucidworks.com

> On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> 
> I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a spare 
> cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.
> 
> -Anshum
> 
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett  
> wrote:
> I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie*
> fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he
> noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
> anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
> weeks?
> 
> Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
> PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
> 7.0. I think they all share a label:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
> 
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
>  wrote:
> >
> > : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to deprecate
> > : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release until
> > : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if we
> > : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the tests
> > : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users. And
> > : to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more volunteers.
> >
> > I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how people can
> > help out...
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807
> >
> >
> >
> > -Hoss
> > http://www.lucidworks.com/
> >
> > -
> > 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: 7.0 Release Update

[Anshum Gupta]

I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a spare
cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do.

-Anshum

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett 
wrote:

> I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie*
> fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he
> noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
> anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
> weeks?
>
> Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
> PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
> 7.0. I think they all share a label:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
>  wrote:
> >
> > : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to deprecate
> > : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release until
> > : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if we
> > : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the tests
> > : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users. And
> > : to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more volunteers.
> >
> > I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how people can
> > help out...
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807
> >
> >
> >
> > -Hoss
> > http://www.lucidworks.com/
> >
> > -
> > 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: 7.0 Release Update

[Cassandra Targett]

I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie*
fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he
noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is
anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more
weeks?

Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with
PointFields and make a case if any should be considered blockers for
7.0. I think they all share a label:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
 wrote:
>
> : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to deprecate
> : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release until
> : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if we
> : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the tests
> : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users. And
> : to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more volunteers.
>
> I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how people can
> help out...
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807
>
>
>
> -Hoss
> http://www.lucidworks.com/
>
> -
> 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: 7.0 Release Update

[Chris Hostetter]

: So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to deprecate
: Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release until
: that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if we
: want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the tests
: and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users. And
: to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more volunteers.

I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how people can 
help out...

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807



-Hoss
http://www.lucidworks.com/

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

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Yonik Seeley]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> Thanks for wording it in a much better manner Cassandra.
>
> The 2 points from my discussion with Hoss/Steve yesterday, are just about
> that. Changing the examples is just a part of what’s needed to *confidently*
> deprecate the Trie/Legacy Numeric fields.
>
> I intend to start helping out with the test, but as you mentioned, the more
> of us contribute to it, the sooner we’d be in a spot to make the decision
> about (not) deprecating the fields in 7.0.

I'll be back home next week and can help out as well.

-Yonik

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

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Anshum Gupta]

Thanks for wording it in a much better manner Cassandra.

The 2 points from my discussion with Hoss/Steve yesterday, are just about that. 
Changing the examples is just a part of what’s needed to *confidently* 
deprecate the Trie/Legacy Numeric fields.

I intend to start helping out with the test, but as you mentioned, the more of 
us contribute to it, the sooner we’d be in a spot to make the decision about 
(not) deprecating the fields in 7.0.


-Anshum



> On Jul 11, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Cassandra Targett  wrote:
> 
> It's more than just SOLR-10760, actually. SOLR-10760 is just about
> updating the example schemas. No problem, easy to do, we could commit
> it today. But I think focusing on that issue obscures the larger
> situation.
> 
> If we care about having a quality application, though, we need to
> address the other points Hoss shared with Anshum yesterday. This
> relies on the test randomization in SOLR-10807 to be sure. The
> strategy there is to create sub-tasks for each test schema file you
> will randomize and fix/file jiras/suppress tests depending on what
> breaks. That effort can be done in parallel, and doesn't rely on Hoss
> or Steve because of some magic knowledge only they possess. However,
> it will go faster if more people help.
> 
> When that's done, assuming we're confident we found everything that
> may be broken, can we live with the broken features in a 7.0 release?
> I think we should understand there will be another decision point once
> we're confident we have updated all the tests and found as many bugs
> as we can.
> 
> So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to deprecate
> Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release until
> that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if we
> want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the tests
> and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users. And
> to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more volunteers.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
>> Here’s an update for 7.0 release.
>> 
>> We are (rightfully) waiting for SOLR-10760 to be completed so that we could
>> deprecate all Trie/LegacyNumeric based fields in 7.0. I discussed this with
>> Hoss, and Steve Rowe, and here are the 2 things that Hoss highlighted that
>> were not directly related for 7.0, but for being able to comfortable
>> deprecate those fields:
>> 
>> "a) points fields have been around for many 6.x releases, but a lot of
>> features silently fail (or fail in weird ways) if you use points ... so i
>> wnat to get those bugs found and documented
>> b) i want the test randomization in place so that as people create new
>> functionality w/ explicit/implicit assumptions about *either* points or
>> tries the tests will fail on them (someitmes)”
>> 
>> While we wait for this, we should now only get bug fixes and critical
>> deprecations into branch_7_0.
>> 
>> P.S: Like always, if someone thinks otherwise, let everyone else know.
>> 
>> -Anshum
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 10, 2017, at 8:50 AM, Cassandra Targett 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Steve.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Steve, and Cassandra.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:29 AM Steve Rowe  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 10, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Cassandra Targett 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> We also need Solr Ref Guide Jenkins jobs for 7.x and 7.0 - Steve Rowe
>> maybe you could help with that?
>> 
>> 
>> I created 7.x & 7.0 ref guide jobs by cloning the master job.
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I enabled the 7.x builds on ASF and Policeman Jenkins. I did not yet
>> create
>> 7.0 jobs. I just want the 7.x builds succeed.
>> 
>> 
>> I went ahead and created the 7.0 jobs on ASF Jenkins - seems like the 7.x
>> jobs are behaving normally.  I did not create the 7.0 jobs on Policeman
>> Jenkins.
>> 
>> I disabled all 6.x builds. I’d like to nuke them at some and just leave
>> the
>> 6.6 builds disabled as a fallback for a new point release. This goes in
>> line
>> with Erick’s question about JIRA labels! I’d not go for a 6.7 release,
>> we
>> should just focus on 7.0.
>> 
>> 
>> I also disabled the 6.x ref guide job.
>> 
>> --
>> Steve
>> www.lucidworks.com
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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: 7.0 Release Update

[Cassandra Targett]

It's more than just SOLR-10760, actually. SOLR-10760 is just about
updating the example schemas. No problem, easy to do, we could commit
it today. But I think focusing on that issue obscures the larger
situation.

If we care about having a quality application, though, we need to
address the other points Hoss shared with Anshum yesterday. This
relies on the test randomization in SOLR-10807 to be sure. The
strategy there is to create sub-tasks for each test schema file you
will randomize and fix/file jiras/suppress tests depending on what
breaks. That effort can be done in parallel, and doesn't rely on Hoss
or Steve because of some magic knowledge only they possess. However,
it will go faster if more people help.

When that's done, assuming we're confident we found everything that
may be broken, can we live with the broken features in a 7.0 release?
I think we should understand there will be another decision point once
we're confident we have updated all the tests and found as many bugs
as we can.

So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to deprecate
Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release until
that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if we
want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the tests
and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for users. And
to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more volunteers.

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> Here’s an update for 7.0 release.
>
> We are (rightfully) waiting for SOLR-10760 to be completed so that we could
> deprecate all Trie/LegacyNumeric based fields in 7.0. I discussed this with
> Hoss, and Steve Rowe, and here are the 2 things that Hoss highlighted that
> were not directly related for 7.0, but for being able to comfortable
> deprecate those fields:
>
> "a) points fields have been around for many 6.x releases, but a lot of
> features silently fail (or fail in weird ways) if you use points ... so i
> wnat to get those bugs found and documented
> b) i want the test randomization in place so that as people create new
> functionality w/ explicit/implicit assumptions about *either* points or
> tries the tests will fail on them (someitmes)”
>
> While we wait for this, we should now only get bug fixes and critical
> deprecations into branch_7_0.
>
> P.S: Like always, if someone thinks otherwise, let everyone else know.
>
> -Anshum
>
>
>
> On Jul 10, 2017, at 8:50 AM, Cassandra Targett 
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Steve.
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Steve, and Cassandra.
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:29 AM Steve Rowe  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jul 10, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Cassandra Targett 
> wrote:
>
> We also need Solr Ref Guide Jenkins jobs for 7.x and 7.0 - Steve Rowe
> maybe you could help with that?
>
>
> I created 7.x & 7.0 ref guide jobs by cloning the master job.
>
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:
>
>
> I enabled the 7.x builds on ASF and Policeman Jenkins. I did not yet
> create
> 7.0 jobs. I just want the 7.x builds succeed.
>
>
> I went ahead and created the 7.0 jobs on ASF Jenkins - seems like the 7.x
> jobs are behaving normally.  I did not create the 7.0 jobs on Policeman
> Jenkins.
>
> I disabled all 6.x builds. I’d like to nuke them at some and just leave
> the
> 6.6 builds disabled as a fallback for a new point release. This goes in
> line
> with Erick’s question about JIRA labels! I’d not go for a 6.7 release,
> we
> should just focus on 7.0.
>
>
> I also disabled the 6.x ref guide job.
>
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com
>
>
> -
> 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: 7.0 Release Update

[Anshum Gupta]

Here’s an update for 7.0 release.

We are (rightfully) waiting for SOLR-10760 to be completed so that we could 
deprecate all Trie/LegacyNumeric based fields in 7.0. I discussed this with 
Hoss, and Steve Rowe, and here are the 2 things that Hoss highlighted that were 
not directly related for 7.0, but for being able to comfortable deprecate those 
fields:

"a) points fields have been around for many 6.x releases, but a lot of features 
silently fail (or fail in weird ways) if you use points ... so i wnat to get 
those bugs found and documented
b) i want the test randomization in place so that as people create new 
functionality w/ explicit/implicit assumptions about *either* points or tries 
the tests will fail on them (someitmes)”

While we wait for this, we should now only get bug fixes and critical 
deprecations into branch_7_0.

P.S: Like always, if someone thinks otherwise, let everyone else know.

-Anshum



> On Jul 10, 2017, at 8:50 AM, Cassandra Targett  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Steve.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
>> Thanks Steve, and Cassandra.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:29 AM Steve Rowe  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
 On Jul 10, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Cassandra Targett 
 wrote:
 
 We also need Solr Ref Guide Jenkins jobs for 7.x and 7.0 - Steve Rowe
 maybe you could help with that?
>>> 
>>> I created 7.x & 7.0 ref guide jobs by cloning the master job.
>>> 
 On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:
> 
> I enabled the 7.x builds on ASF and Policeman Jenkins. I did not yet
> create
> 7.0 jobs. I just want the 7.x builds succeed.
>>> 
>>> I went ahead and created the 7.0 jobs on ASF Jenkins - seems like the 7.x
>>> jobs are behaving normally.  I did not create the 7.0 jobs on Policeman
>>> Jenkins.
>>> 
> I disabled all 6.x builds. I’d like to nuke them at some and just leave
> the
> 6.6 builds disabled as a fallback for a new point release. This goes in
> line
> with Erick’s question about JIRA labels! I’d not go for a 6.7 release,
> we
> should just focus on 7.0.
>>> 
>>> I also disabled the 6.x ref guide job.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Steve
>>> www.lucidworks.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 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: 7.0 Release Update

[Cassandra Targett]

Thanks Steve.

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> Thanks Steve, and Cassandra.
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:29 AM Steve Rowe  wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 10, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Cassandra Targett 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > We also need Solr Ref Guide Jenkins jobs for 7.x and 7.0 - Steve Rowe
>> > maybe you could help with that?
>>
>> I created 7.x & 7.0 ref guide jobs by cloning the master job.
>>
>> > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I enabled the 7.x builds on ASF and Policeman Jenkins. I did not yet
>> >> create
>> >> 7.0 jobs. I just want the 7.x builds succeed.
>>
>> I went ahead and created the 7.0 jobs on ASF Jenkins - seems like the 7.x
>> jobs are behaving normally.  I did not create the 7.0 jobs on Policeman
>> Jenkins.
>>
>> >> I disabled all 6.x builds. I’d like to nuke them at some and just leave
>> >> the
>> >> 6.6 builds disabled as a fallback for a new point release. This goes in
>> >> line
>> >> with Erick’s question about JIRA labels! I’d not go for a 6.7 release,
>> >> we
>> >> should just focus on 7.0.
>>
>> I also disabled the 6.x ref guide job.
>>
>> --
>> Steve
>> www.lucidworks.com
>>
>>
>> -
>> 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: 7.0 Release Update

[Anshum Gupta]

Thanks Steve, and Cassandra.

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:29 AM Steve Rowe  wrote:

>
> > On Jul 10, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Cassandra Targett 
> wrote:
> >
> > We also need Solr Ref Guide Jenkins jobs for 7.x and 7.0 - Steve Rowe
> > maybe you could help with that?
>
> I created 7.x & 7.0 ref guide jobs by cloning the master job.
>
> > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:
> >>
> >> I enabled the 7.x builds on ASF and Policeman Jenkins. I did not yet
> create
> >> 7.0 jobs. I just want the 7.x builds succeed.
>
> I went ahead and created the 7.0 jobs on ASF Jenkins - seems like the 7.x
> jobs are behaving normally.  I did not create the 7.0 jobs on Policeman
> Jenkins.
>
> >> I disabled all 6.x builds. I’d like to nuke them at some and just leave
> the
> >> 6.6 builds disabled as a fallback for a new point release. This goes in
> line
> >> with Erick’s question about JIRA labels! I’d not go for a 6.7 release,
> we
> >> should just focus on 7.0.
>
> I also disabled the 6.x ref guide job.
>
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Steve Rowe]

> On Jul 10, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Cassandra Targett  wrote:
> 
> We also need Solr Ref Guide Jenkins jobs for 7.x and 7.0 - Steve Rowe
> maybe you could help with that?

I created 7.x & 7.0 ref guide jobs by cloning the master job.

> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:
>> 
>> I enabled the 7.x builds on ASF and Policeman Jenkins. I did not yet create
>> 7.0 jobs. I just want the 7.x builds succeed.

I went ahead and created the 7.0 jobs on ASF Jenkins - seems like the 7.x jobs 
are behaving normally.  I did not create the 7.0 jobs on Policeman Jenkins.

>> I disabled all 6.x builds. I’d like to nuke them at some and just leave the
>> 6.6 builds disabled as a fallback for a new point release. This goes in line
>> with Erick’s question about JIRA labels! I’d not go for a 6.7 release, we
>> should just focus on 7.0.

I also disabled the 6.x ref guide job.

--
Steve
www.lucidworks.com


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

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Cassandra Targett]

We also need Solr Ref Guide Jenkins jobs for 7.x and 7.0 - Steve Rowe
maybe you could help with that?

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I enabled the 7.x builds on ASF and Policeman Jenkins. I did not yet create
> 7.0 jobs. I just want the 7.x builds succeed.
>
>
>
> I disabled all 6.x builds. I’d like to nuke them at some and just leave the
> 6.6 builds disabled as a fallback for a new point release. This goes in line
> with Erick’s question about JIRA labels! I’d not go for a 6.7 release, we
> should just focus on 7.0.
>
>
>
> Uwe
>
>
>
> -
>
> Uwe Schindler
>
> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
>
> http://www.thetaphi.de
>
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
>
>
> From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2017 12:32 AM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 7.0 Release Update
>
>
>
> I can do both, if Steve is not faster than I am.
>
> Uwe
>
> Am 4. Juli 2017 00:10:16 MESZ schrieb Anshum Gupta :
>
> Thanks Uwe!
>
>
>
> Can you clarify if Jenkins = Policeman / Apache or both ?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:03 PM Uwe Schindler  wrote:
>
> Thanks Anshum,
>
> I will setup the Jenkins jobs tomorrow!
>
> Uwe
>
>
>
> Am 3. Juli 2017 21:22:46 MESZ schrieb Anshum Gupta :
>
> The following branches have been created off master, prior to bumping up of
> the version:
>
> * branch_7x
>
> * branch_7_0
>
>
>
> The versioon on master has been bumped to 8, and all tests pass.
>
>
>
> Thanks to everyone (specially Adrien, and Uwe) :) for helping out with the
> back-compat stuff and being patient.
>
>
>
> -Anshum
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Uwe Schindler
> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
> https://www.thetaphi.de
>
>
> --
> Uwe Schindler
> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
> https://www.thetaphi.de

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

RE: 7.0 Release Update

[Uwe Schindler]

Hi,

 

I enabled the 7.x builds on ASF and Policeman Jenkins. I did not yet create 7.0 
jobs. I just want the 7.x builds succeed.

 

I disabled all 6.x builds. I’d like to nuke them at some and just leave the 6.6 
builds disabled as a fallback for a new point release. This goes in line with 
Erick’s question about JIRA labels! I’d not go for a 6.7 release, we should 
just focus on 7.0.

 

Uwe

 

-

Uwe Schindler

Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen

http://www.thetaphi.de <http://www.thetaphi.de/> 

eMail: u...@thetaphi.de

 

From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2017 12:32 AM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: 7.0 Release Update

 

I can do both, if Steve is not faster than I am.

Uwe

Am 4. Juli 2017 00:10:16 MESZ schrieb Anshum Gupta mailto:ans...@anshumgupta.net> >:

Thanks Uwe!

 

Can you clarify if Jenkins = Policeman / Apache or both ?

 

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:03 PM Uwe Schindler mailto:u...@thetaphi.de> > wrote:

Thanks Anshum,

I will setup the Jenkins jobs tomorrow!

Uwe

 

Am 3. Juli 2017 21:22:46 MESZ schrieb Anshum Gupta mailto:ansh...@apple.com> >:

The following branches have been created off master, prior to bumping up of the 
version:

* branch_7x

* branch_7_0

 

The versioon on master has been bumped to 8, and all tests pass.

 

Thanks to everyone (specially Adrien, and Uwe) :) for helping out with the 
back-compat stuff and being patient.

 

-Anshum

 

 

 

 

--
Uwe Schindler
Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
https://www.thetaphi.de


--
Uwe Schindler
Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
https://www.thetaphi.de

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Erick Erickson]

Anshum:

I'm unclear about whether we should set a 6.7 label (no release
planned at this point, although one wouldn't surprise me). Is there
any use in setting one just to have a marker in place?

Thanks,
Erick

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Uwe Schindler  wrote:
> I can do both, if Steve is not faster than I am.
>
> Uwe
>
>
> Am 4. Juli 2017 00:10:16 MESZ schrieb Anshum Gupta :
>>
>> Thanks Uwe!
>>
>> Can you clarify if Jenkins = Policeman / Apache or both ?
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:03 PM Uwe Schindler  wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Anshum,
>>>
>>> I will setup the Jenkins jobs tomorrow!
>>>
>>> Uwe
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 3. Juli 2017 21:22:46 MESZ schrieb Anshum Gupta :

 The following branches have been created off master, prior to bumping up
 of the version:
 * branch_7x
 * branch_7_0

 The versioon on master has been bumped to 8, and all tests pass.

 Thanks to everyone (specially Adrien, and Uwe) :) for helping out with
 the back-compat stuff and being patient.

 -Anshum



>>>
>>> --
>>> Uwe Schindler
>>> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
>>> https://www.thetaphi.de
>
>
> --
> Uwe Schindler
> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
> https://www.thetaphi.de

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

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Uwe Schindler]

I can do both, if Steve is not faster than I am.

Uwe

Am 4. Juli 2017 00:10:16 MESZ schrieb Anshum Gupta :
>Thanks Uwe!
>
>Can you clarify if Jenkins = Policeman / Apache or both ?
>
>On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:03 PM Uwe Schindler  wrote:
>
>> Thanks Anshum,
>>
>> I will setup the Jenkins jobs tomorrow!
>>
>> Uwe
>>
>>
>> Am 3. Juli 2017 21:22:46 MESZ schrieb Anshum Gupta
>:
>>>
>>> The following branches have been created off master, prior to
>bumping up
>>> of the version:
>>> * branch_7x
>>> * branch_7_0
>>>
>>> The versioon on master has been bumped to 8, and all tests pass.
>>>
>>> Thanks to everyone (specially Adrien, and Uwe) :) for helping out
>with
>>> the back-compat stuff and being patient.
>>>
>>> -Anshum
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Uwe Schindler
>> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
>> https://www.thetaphi.de
>>

--
Uwe Schindler
Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
https://www.thetaphi.de

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Anshum Gupta]

Thanks Uwe!

Can you clarify if Jenkins = Policeman / Apache or both ?

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:03 PM Uwe Schindler  wrote:

> Thanks Anshum,
>
> I will setup the Jenkins jobs tomorrow!
>
> Uwe
>
>
> Am 3. Juli 2017 21:22:46 MESZ schrieb Anshum Gupta :
>>
>> The following branches have been created off master, prior to bumping up
>> of the version:
>> * branch_7x
>> * branch_7_0
>>
>> The versioon on master has been bumped to 8, and all tests pass.
>>
>> Thanks to everyone (specially Adrien, and Uwe) :) for helping out with
>> the back-compat stuff and being patient.
>>
>> -Anshum
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Uwe Schindler
> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
> https://www.thetaphi.de
>

Re: 7.0 Release Update

[Uwe Schindler]

Thanks Anshum,

I will setup the Jenkins jobs tomorrow!

Uwe

Am 3. Juli 2017 21:22:46 MESZ schrieb Anshum Gupta :
>The following branches have been created off master, prior to bumping
>up of the version:
>* branch_7x
>* branch_7_0
>
>The versioon on master has been bumped to 8, and all tests pass.
>
>Thanks to everyone (specially Adrien, and Uwe) :) for helping out with
>the back-compat stuff and being patient.
>
>-Anshum

--
Uwe Schindler
Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
https://www.thetaphi.de

7.0 Release Update

[Anshum Gupta]

The following branches have been created off master, prior to bumping up of the 
version:
* branch_7x
* branch_7_0

The versioon on master has been bumped to 8, and all tests pass.

Thanks to everyone (specially Adrien, and Uwe) :) for helping out with the 
back-compat stuff and being patient.

-Anshum