Hey Subhajit, Can you share briefly what issues are being seen with 8.7+ versions? We are planning to move a big workload from 7.6 to 8.7 version.
We created a small load-testing tool for sanitizing new Solr versions and that showed throughput of traffic decreasing much more than Solr 7.6 as we loaded more and more data in both the versions. So we are a bit concerned if we should make this move or not. If 8.7 has some grave blockers (fetaures or performance) known already, then we will probably hold off on making the move. Regards SG On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 11:58 AM Subhajit Das <subhajitdas...@live.com> wrote: > Hi Shawn, > > Nice to know that Solr will be considered top level project of Apache. > > I asked based on earlier 3 version patterns. Just hoping that 8.8 would be > long term stable, kind of like 7.7.x line-up. > > Thanks for the clarification. > > Regards, > Subhajit > > From: Shawn Heisey<mailto:apa...@elyograg.org> > Sent: 17 February 2021 09:33 AM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org<mailto:solr-user@lucene.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Is 8.8.x going be stabilized and finalized? > > On 2/16/2021 7:57 PM, Subhajit Das wrote: > > I am planning to use 8.8 line-up for production use. > > > > But recently, a lot of people are complaining on 8.7 and 8.8. Also, > there is a clearly known issue on 8.8 as well. > > > > Following trends of earlier versions (5.x, 6.x and 7.x), will 8.8 will > also be finalized? > > For 5.x, 5.5.x was last version. For 6.x, 6.6.x was last version. For > 7.x, 7.7.x was last version. It would match the pattern, it seems. > > And 9.x is already planned and under development. > > And it seems, we require some stability. > > All released versions are considered stable. Sometimes problems are > uncovered after release. Sometimes BIG problems. We try our very best > to avoid bugs, but achieving that kind of perfection is nearly > impossible for any software project. > > 8.8.0 is the most current release. The 8.8.1 release is underway, but > there's no way I can give you a concrete date. The announcement MIGHT > come in the next few days, but it's always possible it could get pushed > back. At this time, the changelog for 8.8.1 has five bugfixes > mentioned. It should be more stable than 8.8.0, but it's impossible for > me to tell you whether you will have any problems with it. > > On the dev list, the project is discussing the start of work on the 9.0 > release, but that work has not yet begun. Even if it started tomorrow, > it would be several weeks, maybe even a few months, before 9.0 is > actually released. On top of the "normal" headaches involved in any new > major version release, there are some other things going on that might > further delay 9.0 and future 8.x versions: > > * Solr is being promoted from a subproject of Lucene to it's own > top-level project at Apache. This involves a LOT of work. Much of that > work is administrative in nature, which is going to occupy us and take > away from time that we might spend working on the code and new releases. > * The build system for the master branch, which is currently versioned > as 9.0.0-SNAPSHOT, was recently switched from Ant+Ivy to Gradle. It's > going to take some time to figure out all the fallout from that migration. > * Some of the devs have been involved in an effort to greatly simplify > and rewrite how SolrCloud does internal management of a cluster. The > intent is much better stability and better performance. You might have > seen public messages referring to a "reference implementation." At this > time, it is unclear how much of that work will make it into 9.0 and how > much will be revealed in later releases. We would like very much to > include at least the first phase in 9.0 if we can. > > From what I have seen over the last several years as one of the > developers on this project, it is likely that 8.9 and possibly even 8.10 > and 8.11 will be released before we see 9.0. Releases are NOT made on a > specific schedule, so I cannot tell you which versions you will see or > when they might happen. > > I am fully aware that despite typing quite a lot of text here, that I > provided almost nothing in the way of concrete information that you can > use. Sorry about that. > > Thanks, > Shawn > >
