Re: Lucene 9.0 release candidate

anks Greg, Patrick, Mike and Robert for the quick turnaround on > > getting these changes merged! I'll now resume work on the 9.0 release. > > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 4:44 PM Greg Miller wrote: > > > > > > Heads up that both LUCENE-10122 and LUCENE-10062 have

Re: Lucene 9.0 release candidate

Can we also push commit to branch 9x (just don't want it to get forgotten) On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:50 AM Adrien Grand wrote: > > Thanks Greg, Patrick, Mike and Robert for the quick turnaround on > getting these changes merged! I'll now resume work on the 9.0 release. > > On Fr

Re: Lucene 9.0 release candidate

Thanks Greg, Patrick, Mike and Robert for the quick turnaround on getting these changes merged! I'll now resume work on the 9.0 release. On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 4:44 PM Greg Miller wrote: > > Heads up that both LUCENE-10122 and LUCENE-10062 have been merged onto > branch_9_0 now. @Adrie

Re: Lucene 9.0 release candidate

Heads up that both LUCENE-10122 and LUCENE-10062 have been merged onto branch_9_0 now. @Adrien Grand I know you're aware already, but following up here just for completeness. Thanks! -Greg On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 11:17 AM Robert Muir wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 2:02 PM Michael McCandless

Re: Lucene 9.0 release candidate

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 2:02 PM Michael McCandless wrote: > > > Yeah I love that idea, but that's not what Patrick's PR explored (yet?). > > His explored switching away from custom token positions to NumericDocValues > to store the same data (ordinal -> parent mapping), but it still loaded all

Re: Lucene 9.0 release candidate

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 1:14 PM Robert Muir wrote: On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 12:57 PM Michael McCandless > wrote: > > > > I think for PR 420 (https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/420) we are > (confusingly!) not really seeing performance benefits -- taxonomy index got > a bit bigger, and loading

Re: Lucene 9.0 release candidate

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 12:57 PM Michael McCandless wrote: > > I think for PR 420 (https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/420) we are > (confusingly!) not really seeing performance benefits -- taxonomy index got a > bit bigger, and loading the parent arrays no faster? So Patrick closed that >

Re: Lucene 9.0 release candidate

I think for PR 420 (https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/420) we are (confusingly!) not really seeing performance benefits -- taxonomy index got a bit bigger, and loading the parent arrays no faster? So Patrick closed that one. But the other PR (https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/264) looks

Re: Lucene 9.0 release candidate

Thanks Greg! On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 6:09 PM Greg Miller wrote: > +1, yeah let's see if we can get these in. It would be nice to not > carry the back-compat logic into 10. I'll prioritize these > today/tomorrow; I think we should be able to turn them around pretty > quickly. I'll update on this

Re: Lucene 9.0 release candidate

+1, yeah let's see if we can get these in. It would be nice to not carry the back-compat logic into 10. I'll prioritize these today/tomorrow; I think we should be able to turn them around pretty quickly. I'll update on this thread when PRs have been merged. Cheers, -Greg On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at

Re: Lucene 9.0 release candidate

Thanks Dawid. @Greg Miller What do you think about getting these two PRs in for 9.0? On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 9:25 AM Dawid Weiss wrote: > I think we should wait for these two changes. > > I also think we should add automatic bundle names to all JARs starting > with 9.0. Even if they're not

Re: Lucene 9.0 release candidate

I think we should wait for these two changes. I also think we should add automatic bundle names to all JARs starting with 9.0. Even if they're not proper modules yet, it'd clarify what the module names would be for all of the 9x line. I think a short name of lucene.* is sufficient (we don't need

Lucene 9.0 release candidate

Hello, I plan to build a RC for Lucene 9.0 in the next few days. We don't have blockers left, but there are two faceting changes that look like we could save some backward compatibility logic in 10.x by folding them into 9.0: - LUCENE-10062 :

Re: 8.11 and 9.0 release notes

, Nov 2, 2021 at 10:18 AM Adrien Grand wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I started working on the 8.11 and 9.0 release notes, can you help me add >> highlights that I missed? >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/Release+Notes+8.11 >

Re: 8.11 and 9.0 release notes

t; are using may not have replicated the release yet. If that is the > case, please try another mirror. This also applies to Maven access. > > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 10:18 AM Adrien Grand wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I started working on the 8.11 and 9.0 release

Re: 8.11 and 9.0 release notes

Adrien Grand wrote: > > Hello, > > I started working on the 8.11 and 9.0 release notes, can you help me add > highlights that I missed? > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/Release+Notes+8.11 > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/Release+N

8.11 and 9.0 release notes

Hello, I started working on the 8.11 and 9.0 release notes, can you help me add highlights that I missed? https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/Release+Notes+8.11 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/Release+Notes+9.0 -- Adrien

Re: Lucene 9.0 release

ong. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > ~ David Smiley >>>>> > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer >>>>> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > &g

Re: Lucene 9.0 release

> > >>>> > > ~ David Smiley >>>> > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer >>>> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:30 AM Adrien Grand

Re: Lucene 9.0 release

21 at 7:04 AM David Smiley >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > > >>>>> > > +1 Adrien. Thanks for moving things along. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > ~ David Smiley >>>>> > > Apache Lucene/Sol

Re: Lucene 9.0 release

>> > > ~ David Smiley >>>> > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer >>>> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:30 AM Adrien Grand >&

Re: Lucene 9.0 release

; On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:30 AM Adrien Grand >>> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> For visibility, I recently opened a new issue about a case of index >>> corruption which is a blocker for 9.0. Nhat is looking into it. >>> > >> >&g

Re: Lucene 9.0 release

; > >> >> > >> For visibility, I recently opened a new issue about a case of index >> corruption which is a blocker for 9.0. Nhat is looking into it. >> > >> >> > >> We've been discussing releasing 9.0 for a long time now and I think >

Re: Lucene 9.0 release

r for 9.0. Nhat is looking into it. > > We've been discussing releasing 9.0 for a long time now and I think that > everybody agrees with moving forward, there's even some good momentum > around making the build and release tooling ready. So I'd like to propose > the following timeline f

Re: Lucene 9.0 release

looking into it. >> > >> >> > >> We've been discussing releasing 9.0 for a long time now and I think >> > >> that everybody agrees with moving forward, there's even some good >> > >> momentum around making the build and release tooling ready. S

Re: Lucene 9.0 release

d a new issue about a case of index > corruption which is a blocker for 9.0. Nhat is looking into it. > > >> > > >> We've been discussing releasing 9.0 for a long time now and I think > that everybody agrees with moving forward, there's even some good momentum > around ma

Re: Lucene 9.0 release

er for 9.0. Nhat is looking into it. > >> > >> We've been discussing releasing 9.0 for a long time now and I think that > >> everybody agrees with moving forward, there's even some good momentum > >> around making the build and release tooling ready. So I'd like to propose

Re: Lucene 9.0 release

discussing releasing 9.0 for a long time now and I think that >> everybody agrees with moving forward, there's even some good momentum around >> making the build and release tooling ready. So I'd like to propose the >> following timeline for the 9.0 release to get some feedbac

Re: Lucene 9.0 release

tooling ready. So I'd like to propose > the following timeline for the 9.0 release to get some feedback: > > 2021-11-01: Feature freeze: > - branch_9x gets created from main > - branch_8_11 gets created from branch_8x > This gives us ~2 weeks to do some last-minute work. The reaso

Re: Lucene 9.0 release

orward, there's even some good momentum around making the build and release tooling ready. So I'd like to propose the following timeline for the 9.0 release to get some feedback: 2021-11-01: Feature freeze: - branch_9x gets created from main - branch_8_11 gets created from branch_8x This gives us ~2

Re: Lucene 9.0 release

lockers seem to be done with. So I guess we just need an RM to get the ball > rolling? :) > > I know that the Release Wizard in new Lucene repo needs some updates > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9809 - I may help some with > that... > > Cross-ref other 9

Re: Lucene 9.0 release

+1 Blockers seem to be done with. So I guess we just need an RM to get the ball rolling? :) I know that the Release Wizard in new Lucene repo needs some updates https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9809 - I may help some with that... Cross-ref other 9.0 release mail-threads: - &quo

Re: Lucene 9.0 release

+1 to your suggestions I just commented on LUCENE-9959 to suggest reverting since the changes are currently half baked and I don't think that they should block 9.0. There are no other blockers left to my knowledge. On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 6:24

Lucene 9.0 release

It's been two years since our last release, we had lots of +1 when we raised this last December, and IMO we are close to baked at this point. I checked JIRA and found two remaining Blockers 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10016 VectorReader.search needs rethought, o.a.l.search

Re: 9.0 release

ichael, did you get a chance to mark the issues you were > thinking of as blockers? > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> Adrien, I see that the remaining open blockers look mostly like > your open issues. Two of them have recent activity, but LUCENE-904

Re: 9.0 release

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:59 PM Mike Drob wrote: >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> Michael, did you get a chance to mark the issues you were thinking >>> >>> >> of as blockers? >>> >>> >> >>> >>&g

Re: 9.0 release

> need to be brought back to the lucene repo. Is this an accurate view of the >> state of things? >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Now that I'm done with 8.8.2, I would love to see how we can >> continue to make headway on 9.0! >> >>> >> >&g

Re: 9.0 release

we can > continue to make headway on 9.0! > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 3:25 PM Michael Sokolov > wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> There has been some discussion arou

Re: 9.0 release

;> >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 3:25 PM Michael Sokolov >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> There has been some discussion around a few code visibility and naming >>> >>> issues related to "

Re: 9.0 release

gt;>> issues related to "VectorFormat" as it is called today. I'd like to >> >>> get that sorted out before 9.0 - I'll hunt up the ticket(s) and mark >> >>> as blockers >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 11:02 AM

Re: 9.0 release

AM Adrien Grand > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Hello Jan, > >>> > > >>> > The list of blockers should be mostly up-to-date: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9661?jql=project%3D%22Lucene%20-%20Core%22%20and%20priority%3DBlocker%20and%20fi

Re: 9.0 release

n Grand wrote: >>> > >>> > Hello Jan, >>> > >>> > The list of blockers should be mostly up-to-date: >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9661?jql=project%3D%22Lucene%20-%20Core%22%20and%20priority%3DBlocker%20and%20fi

Re: 9.0 release

up-to-date: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9661?jql=project%3D%22Lucene%20-%20Core%22%20and%20priority%3DBlocker%20and%20fixVersion%3D%22main%20(9.0)%22 >> . >> > >> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 7:21 PM Jan Høydahl >> wrote: >> >> >

Re: 9.0 release

ote: >> > >> > Hello Jan, >> > >> > The list of blockers should be mostly up-to-date: >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9661?jql=project%3D%22Lucene%20-%20Core%22%20and%20priority%3DBlocker%20and%20fixVersion%3D%22main%20(9.0)%22.

Re: 9.0 release

//issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9661?jql=project%3D%22Lucene%20-%20Core%22%20and%20priority%3DBlocker%20and%20fixVersion%3D%22main%20(9.0)%22 > . > > > > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 7:21 PM Jan Høydahl > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >>

Re: 9.0 release

e: >> >> Hi, >> >> Where are we at with the Lucene 9.0 release planning? >> >> The git split is largely done. Not sure about the build. >> Let's update the umbrella issue >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9375 for known remaining >> clean

Re: 9.0 release

re are we at with the Lucene 9.0 release planning? > > The git split is largely done. Not sure about the build. > Let's update the umbrella issue > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9375 for known remaining > cleanup tasks. > The one on that list is releaseWizard, but as

Re: 9.0 release

Hi, Where are we at with the Lucene 9.0 release planning? The git split is largely done. Not sure about the build. Let's update the umbrella issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9375 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9375> for known remaining cleanup tasks. T

Re: 9.0 release

+1 to start planning 9.0. Since you mentioned the Gradle build, I believe that we still need to migrate some of the release tooling from Ant to Gradle, e.g. dev-tools/scripts/addBackcompatIndexes.py. These scripts are not easy to test without actually doing a release so the 9.0 RM might have some

Re: 9.0 release

+1 New year and time to get this ball rolling! Jan > 28. des. 2020 kl. 19:17 skrev Michael Sokolov : > > Hi everyone, as we head into a new year full of optimism, is it time > to start discussing the next major release? We released 8.0 on Jun 18, > 2019, over 18 months ago. Since then we've

Re: 9.0 release

+1 On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 8:43 AM Erick Erickson wrote: > > It’ll really be nice to not have to switch between gradle and ant when > verifying changes ;). > > Not to mention that we’ll be able to stop having to deal with Java 8 > .vs. Java 11. > > I don’t expect this to be a short release, so

Re: 9.0 release

It’ll really be nice to not have to switch between gradle and ant when verifying changes ;). Not to mention that we’ll be able to stop having to deal with Java 8 .vs. Java 11. I don’t expect this to be a short release, so yeah, I think it’s time to start the process. Erick > On Dec 28, 2020,

Re: 9.0 release

+1 I think the division steps are pretty clearly documented-- a matter of executing them now. On Tue, 29 Dec 2020, 01:03 Dawid Weiss, wrote: > It would be great indeed if we could push to finalize dividing the > codebases (some things have been proven to be doable - snapshot > builds,

Re: 9.0 release

It would be great indeed if we could push to finalize dividing the codebases (some things have been proven to be doable - snapshot builds, splitting the code, build, etc.) and then follow up with proper releases of both Lucene and Solr (on their independent TLP). Dawid On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at

Re: 9.0 release

+1 on starting 9.0 release planning. Nicholas Knize, Ph.D., GISP Principal Engineer - Search | Amazon Apache Lucene PMC Member and Committer nkn...@apache.org On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 12:34 PM Timothy Potter wrote: > Hear! Hear! Definitely agree it's time to start planning around 9. Tha

Re: 9.0 release

Hear! Hear! Definitely agree it's time to start planning around 9. Thanks for initiating the discussion Mike. Will follow-up after the new year with some specific thoughts around planning. Cheers, Tim On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:17 AM Michael Sokolov wrote: > Hi everyone, as we head into a new

9.0 release

Hi everyone, as we head into a new year full of optimism, is it time to start discussing the next major release? We released 8.0 on Jun 18, 2019, over 18 months ago. Since then we've switched to a gradle-based build. We have added vector-valued fields and an HNSW neighbor search algorithm for