Re: 8.10 release soon?

Thanks for the feedback. My plan right now is to cut the release branch for 8.10 on *Tuesday, Sept. 7* (Monday is a US holiday). Hopefully this gives enough time to get the remaining issues addressed. After the release branch is cut, there should be some discussion on any new changes coming

Re: 8.10 release soon?

+1 to cutting the 8.10 branch and getting the release moving. Will be good to get the #9981 patch out there. Tests seem happy for a while. Thanks for chasing these blockers. Nicholas Knize, Ph.D., GISP Principal Engineer - Search | Amazon

Re: Are the new index consistency checks too strict?

Yes. The idea behind these new enforcements is that all documents must have a consistent schema, but we still support the case when some documents are missing values for a field. Whenever a field gets added for the first time to an index, we generate a FieldInfo for it. And further documents that

Re: Are the new index consistency checks too strict?

Hmm .. I guess I missed the implication of your comment about requiring both points and docvalues for some cases, which I guess could be violated if we relaxed this NONE != not NONE enforcement for docvalues (or points)... On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 7:46 AM Michael Sokolov wrote: > > Oh, and also, I

Re: Are the new index consistency checks too strict?

Oh, and also, I like the idea of making index sorting parent/child aware! On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 7:45 AM Michael Sokolov wrote: > > Yes, I am also supportive of the idea of having a schema that is > enforced, and I like what it enables us to do. I just wonder if we > could relax the enforcement

Re: Are the new index consistency checks too strict?

Yes, I am also supportive of the idea of having a schema that is enforced, and I like what it enables us to do. I just wonder if we could relax the enforcement around IndexOptions.NONE (and DocValuesType.NONE). Would it make sense to enable NONE to be "equal to" any other IndexOptions, so that eg,

Re: TestCheckIndex failing seed

Thanks for the quick fix, Zach On Wed, Sep 1, 2021, 10:03 PM zacharym...@yahoo.com.INVALID wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Sorry about the test failure and thanks for providing the seed! This is a > new test I added as part of changes for LUCENE-9662. I've created a PR for > fixing it