Thank you very much Erick, I appreciate your feed back. On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Using classic schema is perfectly acceptable/reasonable, you can > continue to do so freely (you'll have to change to > ClassicSchemaFactory though). > > Also, you can freely edit managed-schema just as you did schema.xml. > The "trick" here is that you have to take some care _not_ to issue > commands that modify the schema or the in-memory version will > overwrite the one in ZK. Otherwise, though, you can freely use > managed-schema just as you do classic schema. > > So you can do just what you do now, keep managed-schema in VCS and > upconfig it. Also note that Solr 6.2 has "bin/solr zk > upconfig/downconfig/cp/mv/ls" functionality. > > Managed lends itself to some kind of UI that maintains it. The process > (IMO) for using that in prod would be something like: > > Use the UI to build your schema > > copy from ZK to your local machine > > put the configs in VCS > > Deploy using the VCS as your system-of-record. > > But that's just my approach. If you don't want to use the > managed-schema features, switch back to classic IMO. > > Best, > Erick > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Rachid Bouacheria <willi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I am upgrading from solr 4 to 6. > > In solr 4 I have a schema.xml that is under version control. > > But solr 6 has the notion of a managed schema that could be modified via > a > > solr api call. > > This seems great and flexible, but my assumption is that in this case > > zookeeper becomes the authoritative copy and not SVN or Git. > > > > And this is where things become unclear to me. > > Is the expectation to download the configuration from zk the same way we > do > > an svn checkout to have the configuration and run locally? > > How do we know who changed what and when? > > > > I know that there still is the option to use schema.xml by using > > the ClassicIndexSchemaFactory but I am curious to hear from y'all that > use > > managed schema how you are doing it and if there are any downside, > gotchas, > > or if all is just much better :-) > > > > Seems to me that running locally is harder as you cannot just checkout a > > project that contains the up to date schema. > > > > Thank you, > > Rachid. >
