I backported ALL SolrBot PRs to branch_9_4, which brings the number of known
CVEs down.
I also have a few other dependency upgrades baking in PRs but unfortunately
Crave has died so no PRs pass tests:
> Run cd
> /crave-devspaces/pipeline/runs/${GITHUB_RUN_ID}_${GITHUB_RUN_NUMBER}/solr
> Selec
Sounds good Eric. It's not clear when exactly a 9.4.1 RC will happen as
there are a couple security matters we're looking at.
~ David
On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 12:31 PM Eric Pugh
wrote:
> Something that I’d like to get released ASAP is a fix to the bin/solr post
> command.
>
> Our Ref Guide has a
Thanks for backporting. Remember to update JIRA FixVersion for them
accordingly.
~ David
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 7:27 AM Jan Høydahl wrote:
> +1
>
> I backported these bugfixes:
>
> SOLR-17039: Entropy calculation in bin/solr script fails in Docker due to
> missing 'bc' cmd (janhoy)
> SOLR-685
Something that I’d like to get released ASAP is a fix to the bin/solr post
command.
Our Ref Guide has a lot of mentions of using “bin/solr post -c tech products”,
however I removed the -c parameter in favour of -url parameter. I think that
was a mistake, and would like to restore the old -c
I think it came in as part of https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/1319
It has been this way for a while if you don't do a clean/full build.
At first I thought we could remove the licenses, but they are still needed
just because they aren't referenced with whatever steps were run.
Kevin Risden
Good question - I'm still thinking through what makes the most sense
there. Let's continue discussion on SOLR-17100 if you've got thoughts!
On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 9:58 AM Jan Høydahl wrote:
> Jason, what do you mean by "publishing" the clients?
> I suppose you don't mean pip and npm, but includ
Jason, what do you mean by "publishing" the clients?
I suppose you don't mean pip and npm, but including them in the binary tarball
for users to consume? Or can we perhaps keep them "internal" only for a few
releases with no docs and no guarantees, only dog-fooding?
Jan
> 6. des. 2023 kl. 15:38
I'd love to see a 9.5 go out sometime in January to get our new Python and
Javascript clients in front of users. I'm willing to RM the release, or
share duties with you if you're interested David? Publishing the new
clients will require some changes to the release process, and I'd hate to
saddle
The benefit of doing 9.4.1 now is that it won't have that unknown regression
that may be lurking in branch_9x now, so it's a much easier upgrade path for
9.4.0 users.
However, I feel a 9.5 should follow quickly after. There is always room for a
9.6, 9.7 etc if someone wants to promote newer feat
