Re: Creating 5.1 branch soon ...
I'd like to move ahead an create the 5.1 branch later today so that we can start locking down what's included in the release. I know this adds an extra merge step for you Adrien for LUCENE-6303, but I hope that's not too much trouble for you? Cheers, Tim On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Adrien Grand wrote: > Hi Timothy, > > We have an issue with auto caching in Lucene that uncovered some > issues with using queries as cache keys since some of them are mutable > (including major one like BooleanQuery and PhraseQuery). I reopened > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6303 and provided a patch > to disable this feature so that we can release. I can hopefully commit > it early next week. > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Timothy Potter > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to create the 5.1 branch soon'ish, thinking maybe late tomorrow > or > > early Friday. > > > > If I understand correctly, that implies that new features should not be > > added after that point without some agreement among the committers about > > whether it should be included? > > > > Let me know if this is too soon and when a more ideal date/time would be. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Your friendly 5.1 release manager (aka thelabdude) > > > > -- > Adrien > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
Re: Creating 5.1 branch soon ...
No problem, thanks for letting us know the timing ;-) On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Adrien Grand wrote: > Hi Timothy, > > We have an issue with auto caching in Lucene that uncovered some > issues with using queries as cache keys since some of them are mutable > (including major one like BooleanQuery and PhraseQuery). I reopened > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6303 and provided a patch > to disable this feature so that we can release. I can hopefully commit > it early next week. > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Timothy Potter > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to create the 5.1 branch soon'ish, thinking maybe late tomorrow > or > > early Friday. > > > > If I understand correctly, that implies that new features should not be > > added after that point without some agreement among the committers about > > whether it should be included? > > > > Let me know if this is too soon and when a more ideal date/time would be. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Your friendly 5.1 release manager (aka thelabdude) > > > > -- > Adrien > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
Re: Creating 5.1 branch soon ...
Hi Timothy, We have an issue with auto caching in Lucene that uncovered some issues with using queries as cache keys since some of them are mutable (including major one like BooleanQuery and PhraseQuery). I reopened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6303 and provided a patch to disable this feature so that we can release. I can hopefully commit it early next week. On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Timothy Potter wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to create the 5.1 branch soon'ish, thinking maybe late tomorrow or > early Friday. > > If I understand correctly, that implies that new features should not be > added after that point without some agreement among the committers about > whether it should be included? > > Let me know if this is too soon and when a more ideal date/time would be. > > Sincerely, > > Your friendly 5.1 release manager (aka thelabdude) -- Adrien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: Creating 5.1 branch soon ...
If the new JSON API is marked experimental, then I have no issue. Didn't know that was the plan, sorry for the noise. Steve From: Timothy Potter [thelabd...@gmail.com] Sent: March 25, 2015 2:44 PM To: lucene dev Subject: Re: Creating 5.1 branch soon ... Sorry - I didn't intend any offense with the precedent statement, only the fact that SOLR-6348 has released features already, namely SOLR-6351 and SOLR-6354 are in 5.0 already. On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Timothy Potter <thelabd...@gmail.com> wrote: > That could be months of haggling and I don't think we should hold up all the > other nice features, improvements, and bug fixes for too much longer as we > don't want to slow down adoption of 5.x +1 > Without any judgement of what was done in SOLR-7214 and given that SOLR-6348 > has precedent, I'll disagree with the precedent bit... I worked on this stuff (and presented it at ApacheCon) long before SOLR-6348 was opened. > why not mark the new JSON API as experimental, giving us > freedom to unify the approaches over the next several releases? +1 for experimental - that had been my (uncommunicated) plan anyway. We don't want to lock down APIs prematurely, it's really important to get them right! -Yonik - 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: Creating 5.1 branch soon ...
Sorry - I didn't intend any offense with the precedent statement, only the fact that SOLR-6348 has released features already, namely SOLR-6351 and SOLR-6354 are in 5.0 already. On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Timothy Potter > wrote: > > That could be months of haggling and I don't think we should hold up all > the > > other nice features, improvements, and bug fixes for too much longer as > we > > don't want to slow down adoption of 5.x > > +1 > > > Without any judgement of what was done in SOLR-7214 and given that > SOLR-6348 > > has precedent, > > I'll disagree with the precedent bit... I worked on this stuff (and > presented it at ApacheCon) long before SOLR-6348 was opened. > > > why not mark the new JSON API as experimental, giving us > > freedom to unify the approaches over the next several releases? > > +1 for experimental - that had been my (uncommunicated) plan anyway. > We don't want to lock down APIs prematurely, it's really important to > get them right! > > -Yonik > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
Re: Creating 5.1 branch soon ...
On 3/25/2015 11:30 AM, Steve Molloy wrote: > I think something should be done about SOLR-7296 before releasing. > IMHO, having 2 implementations and completely unrelated APIs for > facetting is asking for problems down the road. So before exposing > this publicly, we should either align implementation or at least the > dev group needs to consciously make the decision to move ahead with > this, understanding the drawbacks. Replying without understanding any of the facet code or how each implementation differs from the others: Because this has a heavy impact on low-level API code, I doubt that we can get this into 5.1. It might even be disruptive enough that we'll fork trunk into an issue-specific branch, do the heavy lifting, commit to trunk, and then backport after a suitable baking period. Thanks, Shawn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Creating 5.1 branch soon ...
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Timothy Potter wrote: > That could be months of haggling and I don't think we should hold up all the > other nice features, improvements, and bug fixes for too much longer as we > don't want to slow down adoption of 5.x +1 > Without any judgement of what was done in SOLR-7214 and given that SOLR-6348 > has precedent, I'll disagree with the precedent bit... I worked on this stuff (and presented it at ApacheCon) long before SOLR-6348 was opened. > why not mark the new JSON API as experimental, giving us > freedom to unify the approaches over the next several releases? +1 for experimental - that had been my (uncommunicated) plan anyway. We don't want to lock down APIs prematurely, it's really important to get them right! -Yonik - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Creating 5.1 branch soon ...
That could be months of haggling and I don't think we should hold up all the other nice features, improvements, and bug fixes for too much longer as we don't want to slow down adoption of 5.x Without any judgement of what was done in SOLR-7214 and given that SOLR-6348 has precedent, why not mark the new JSON API as experimental, giving us freedom to unify the approaches over the next several releases? On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Steve Molloy wrote: > I think something should be done about SOLR-7296 before releasing. IMHO, > having 2 implementations and completely unrelated APIs for facetting is > asking for problems down the road. So before exposing this publicly, we > should either align implementation or at least the dev group needs to > consciously make the decision to move ahead with this, understanding the > drawbacks. > > Steve > -- > *From:* Timothy Potter [thelabd...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* March 25, 2015 1:17 PM > *To:* lucene dev > *Subject:* Creating 5.1 branch soon ... > > Hi, > > I'd like to create the 5.1 branch soon'ish, thinking maybe late tomorrow > or early Friday. > > If I understand correctly, that implies that new features should not be > added after that point without some agreement among the committers about > whether it should be included? > > Let me know if this is too soon and when a more ideal date/time would be. > > Sincerely, > > Your friendly 5.1 release manager (aka thelabdude) >- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional > commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: Creating 5.1 branch soon ...
I think something should be done about SOLR-7296 before releasing. IMHO, having 2 implementations and completely unrelated APIs for facetting is asking for problems down the road. So before exposing this publicly, we should either align implementation or at least the dev group needs to consciously make the decision to move ahead with this, understanding the drawbacks. Steve From: Timothy Potter [thelabd...@gmail.com] Sent: March 25, 2015 1:17 PM To: lucene dev Subject: Creating 5.1 branch soon ... Hi, I'd like to create the 5.1 branch soon'ish, thinking maybe late tomorrow or early Friday. If I understand correctly, that implies that new features should not be added after that point without some agreement among the committers about whether it should be included? Let me know if this is too soon and when a more ideal date/time would be. Sincerely, Your friendly 5.1 release manager (aka thelabdude) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Creating 5.1 branch soon ...
Hi, I'd like to create the 5.1 branch soon'ish, thinking maybe late tomorrow or early Friday. If I understand correctly, that implies that new features should not be added after that point without some agreement among the committers about whether it should be included? Let me know if this is too soon and when a more ideal date/time would be. Sincerely, Your friendly 5.1 release manager (aka thelabdude)