Re: Lucene 9.2 release

Hi all, Just a minor heads-up. We will have a more fine-grained Java version check when starting gradlew command shortly. After PR #941 is merged into main, you need newer Java (17.0.3) for a build. 2022年5月18日(水) 19:00 Tomoko Uchida : > > Hi, I just wanted to note that I opened LUCENE-10578. >

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

Hi, I just wanted to note that I opened LUCENE-10578. Maybe it'd be worth having the discussion in Jira? 2022年5月18日(水) 18:31 Alan Woodward : > I think this release is the first time I’ve used Java 11 since 2019, yes! > > I’ll get the latest AdoptOpenJDK version and try and persuade my Mac to >

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

I think this release is the first time I’ve used Java 11 since 2019, yes! I’ll get the latest AdoptOpenJDK version and try and persuade my Mac to use it... > On 18 May 2022, at 10:19, Dawid Weiss wrote: > > Living in the past, aren't we? :) > > D. > > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:49 AM Alan

RE: Lucene 9.2 release

for > minimum requirements. > > Uwe > > - > Uwe Schindler > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > https://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > -Original Message- > > From: Alan Woodward > > Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 10:49 AM &

RE: Lucene 9.2 release

://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > -Original Message- > From: Alan Woodward > Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 10:49 AM > To: Dawid Weiss ; dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Lucene 9.2 release > > $ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-11.jdk/Contents/Home

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

Living in the past, aren't we? :) D. On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:49 AM Alan Woodward wrote: > > $ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-11.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java -version > > openjdk version "11" 2018-09-25 > OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11+28) > OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

$ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-11.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java -version openjdk version "11" 2018-09-25 OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11+28) OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11+28, mixed mode) > On 18 May 2022, at 09:35, Dawid Weiss wrote: > > Alan, what's the exact JDK

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

Alan, what's the exact JDK vendor/ release number you used that had this problem? If we can reproduce it then we'd know where to look (bisect until we know javadoc works correctly). D. On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:33 AM Dawid Weiss wrote: > > > I'd like to draw attention to my second question

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

> I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still here... > should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry here is, > that minor versions could depend on the distributor. This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify which version

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

I'll take a look if I have a chance. I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still here... should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry here is, that minor versions could depend on the distributor. 2022年5月18日(水) 16:10 Dawid Weiss : > I think it makes

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

I think it makes sense to fail the build in both cases. An early warning to upgrade buggy old java releases... D. On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 9:06 AM Tomoko Uchida wrote: > > Thanks, Dawid for the pointer. > If there is a distribution-agnostic and reliable minor/patch version, we > could specify a

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

Thanks, Dawid for the pointer. If there is a distribution-agnostic and reliable minor/patch version, we could specify a more detailed minimum requirement version for building. I think we shouldn't limit the distribution - or, we should (at least on making the release artifact)? Tomoko

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

> I'd agree with this and it'd be great if we can fail to build locally and > encourage devs to use a newer patch version of Java (instead of blaming > developers for not upgrading jdk they use) - I have no good idea at all > though. This should be simple. In alternative-jdk-support.gradle,

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

Thanks Robert for elaborating. In that case (older Java11 is the cause), it makes sense to me that CI builds didn't hit it. > I'm also ok with failing hard on the build if someone tries to use > such old stuff. I'd agree with this and it'd be great if we can fail to build locally and encourage

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

I'm unable to even download an old enough jdk version to reproduce the javadocs bugs Alan hits. The oldest you can get from adoptopenjdk archives are 4-year old java 11 versions, still not old enough. There's no value to testing such broken old versions (e.g. 11.0.1) in our CI when we've already

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

But that's not the case at all. I suspect it is simply that Alan used an older version of java 11, one that has a javadocs bug. On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:26 PM Tomoko Uchida wrote: > > > I think the issue will boil down to exact version of java 11. It has to be > > the one with the javadocs

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

> I think the issue will boil down to exact version of java 11. It has to be the one with the javadocs bug that emits broken links in this situation. Yes - I think it'd be great if we can detect bugs in our code and the language itself we depend on (Java 11) on nightly CI builds, not on the

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

I think the issue will boil down to exact version of java 11. It has to be the one with the javadocs bug that emits broken links in this situation. On Tue, May 17, 2022, 8:39 PM Tomoko Uchida wrote: > > I’ve started the release process using the wizard, which has found some > broken links in

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

> I’ve started the release process using the wizard, which has found some broken links in javadoc. I'm just interested in this point - as Uwe pointed out, Jenkins servers (and also GitHub Actions I think) should hit the problem as they run on branch_9x and Java 11 on a regular basis. Could you

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 5:59 AM Alan Woodward wrote: > > It was part of the release process, which runs with Java 11. It should be > fixed now. > > > Newer java versions won't make a broken link, you just won't have a link at > > all. > > This seems a bit of a shame, as some of the problems

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

oblem. Was this in >> smoke tester or during normal gradle build? >> > >> > Uwe >> > >> > - >> > Uwe Schindler >> > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen >> > https://www.thetaphi.de >> > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de >

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

aphi.de > > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Robert Muir > >> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 3:30 PM > >> To: dev@lucene.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: Lucene 9.2 release > >> > >> On Mon, M

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

l gradle build? > > Uwe > > - > Uwe Schindler > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > https://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > >> -Original Message- >> From: Robert Muir >> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 3:30 PM >> To: dev@lucene.apache.or

RE: Lucene 9.2 release

y, May 16, 2022 3:30 PM > To: dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Lucene 9.2 release > > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 9:28 AM Dawid Weiss > wrote: > > - different jvms producing different javadoc? Could this be the cause? > > > > This is it, it is always a b

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 9:28 AM Dawid Weiss wrote: > - different jvms producing different javadoc? Could this be the cause? > This is it, it is always a bug when javadoc produces broken links like this. It happens "at release time" because otherwise nobody is messing with java 11. Newer java

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

It shouldn't be the case. Either something is misconfigured or wrong. - you can try to diff a clean run with a non-clean run and add --console=plain and possible --info to gradlew - this will emit more information about tasks and whether they ran or not, - different jvms producing different

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

Hi all, I was ill at the end of last week so this took a little longer than expected! I’ve started the release process using the wizard, which has found some broken links in javadoc. Somewhat strangely, these broken links don’t seem to be found when not running from a clean checkout, which

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

Hi Alan, I want to report that all scheduled changes to vectors' format have been merged to 9.x, and from our side we are good to proceed with the 9.2 release. Sorry for the delay and thank you for waiting. On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 9:24 AM Mayya Sharipova wrote: > Hi Alan, > we have PRs (870

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

Hi Mayya, Yes, that’s fine. I will hold off until you have merged those two PRs. - Alan > On 10 May 2022, at 14:24, Mayya Sharipova > wrote: > > Hi Alan, > we have PRs (870 , 872 >

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

Hi Alan, we have PRs (870 , 872 ) in progress that involve format changes to vectors. We would like to merge them for 9.2. Would it be possible to wait for a couple of days for the branch cut? I can update here

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

+1 Thank you Alan! I wonder if it makes sense to include in the highlighted updates that pull requests to the github repository no longer require Jira issues? I'm trying to adjust the contribution workflow more GitHub-oriented and there is a related issue

Re: Lucene 9.2 release

+1 Thanks Alan! > On 3. May 2022, at 13:01, Alan Woodward wrote: > > Hi all, > > It’s been six weeks or so since we released 9.1, and we have a bunch of nice > new features and enhancements piling up in the 9.x branch. I’d like to > volunteer to be a release manager for a 9.2 release. I