Thanks Varun, and Uwe. I'll freeze stuff on 7.0 and work on the release now.
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 1:27 AM Varun Thacker <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Anshum, > > SOLR-11228 was the only fix which I ported from 7.1 to both branch_6_6 and > branch_7_0 . I don't plan on backporting any other changes from 7.1 to 6.6.1 > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Anshum, >> >> >> >> I’d like to get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8689 in, it’s >> marked as blocker. It would be a bit embarrassing, if we release Solr 7 >> approximately at same time like Java 9 and it does not work on our >> supported platforms. On Linux it works since beginning of this year, but >> the windows shell scripts were broken. I am just waiting for comments on >> this issue about the GC log file handling (unfortunately, I have to ignore >> custom GC_LOG_OPTS on Java 9, because the windows shell does not allow to >> rewrite the arguments in the same way like UNIX allows with reg exes). >> >> >> >> Yesterday (before your mail), I already backported a Hadoop 2.7.2 -> >> 2.7.4 update, so it works now with Java 9. This made the ugly workaround >> obsolete (changing java.version sysprop temporarily). This fix is now in >> 6.6.1 and 7.0 branch. >> >> >> >> Uwe >> >> >> >> ----- >> >> Uwe Schindler >> >> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen >> >> http://www.thetaphi.de >> >> eMail: [email protected] >> >> >> >> *From:* Anshum Gupta [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 3:31 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: 7.0 Release Update >> >> >> >> Let's not commit more stuff to 7.0, unless it's a blocker as it gets hard >> to track. >> >> At this time, the only commits that would be going in to 7.0 are the ones >> that Varun spoke to me about back porting. >> >> Once that is done, I'll cut an RC (most likely tomorrow). In the >> meanwhile, I'll work on the release notes, and making sure that the CHANGES >> are good for 7.0. >> >> >> >> Anshum >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 8:33 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> I've added SOLR-11183 to the release branch. Please let me know if >> someone has any concerns. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ishan >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Yonik Seeley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11262 >> I don't know if it has implications for 7.0 or not. >> >> From the issue: >> """This means that any code using PushWriter (via MapWriter or >> IteratorWriter) will be broken if one tries to use XML response >> format. This may easily go unnoticed if one is not using XML response >> format in testing (JSON or binary is frequently used).""" >> >> >> -Yonik >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Noble Paul <[email protected]> wrote: >> > sorry for the last minute notice. I need to fix the folowing as well. >> > It may take a few hours >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11239 >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Andrzej Białecki >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Then, if I may be so bold, I’d like to slip in SOLR-11235, which is a >> simple >> >> AlreadyClosedException prevention fix. Patch is ready, tests are >> passing. >> >> >> >> On 14 Aug 2017, at 19:17, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Thanks Ab. >> >> >> >> I'll cut an RC on Wednesday, so that both, I get the time, and also >> that the >> >> tests get some time on Jenkins. >> >> >> >> Anshum >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:29 AM Andrzej Białecki >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> I’ve committed the fix for SOLR-11221 to branch_7_0 (and branch_7x and >> >>> master). >> >>> >> >>> On 12 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Andrzej Białecki >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Anshum, >> >>> >> >>> The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required >> larger >> >>> changes than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that >> is not >> >>> so well tested… I added a test that used to fail without this change, >> and >> >>> manual testing confirms that metrics are now correctly reported after >> core >> >>> reloads. >> >>> >> >>> We could postpone this fix to 7.0.1 if there are objections, but I >> think >> >>> it should go in to 7.0 - without the fix JMX reporting is surely >> broken, >> >>> with the fix it’s only a possibility ;) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 19:59, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for the report Mark! >> >>> >> >>> and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed. >> >>> >> >>> Anshum >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken. >> >>>> >> >>>> Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch: >> >>>> http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811 >> >>>> >> >>>> - Mark >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe < >> [email protected]> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known >> critical >> >>>>> bug. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi Ab, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait, >> >>>>> depending upon the impact, and the time required to fix it. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Anshum >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki >> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX >> monitoring. We >> >>>>>> could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do >> 7.0.1, or wait >> >>>>>> until it’s fixed. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can >> >>>>>> evaluate that for an rc as well. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> - Mark >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta < >> [email protected]> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Good news! >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after >> giving >> >>>>>>> Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this >> on >> >>>>>>> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope >> shouldn't be the >> >>>>>>> case. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Anshum >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I worked through the list of issues with the >> >>>>>>>> "numeric-tries-to-points” label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker >> that seemed >> >>>>>>>> reasonable, on the assumption that we should at a minimum give >> clear error >> >>>>>>>> messages for points non-compatibility. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve made, I’m >> >>>>>>>> willing to discuss on the issues. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0 blockers now. I >> >>>>>>>> would welcome assistance in clearing them up. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining 7.0 blockers, of >> which >> >>>>>>>> there are currently 12: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> < >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+in+(SOLR,LUCENE)+AND+fixVersion=7.0+AND+priority=Blocker+AND+resolution=Unresolved >> > >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>> Steve >> >>>>>>>> www.lucidworks.com >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta < >> [email protected]> >> >>>>>>>> > wrote: >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else >> has a >> >>>>>>>> > spare cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do. >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > -Anshum >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett >> >>>>>>>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all >> >>>>>>>> > Trie* >> >>>>>>>> > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working >> on. As >> >>>>>>>> > he >> >>>>>>>> > noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. >> Is >> >>>>>>>> > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ >> >>>>>>>> > more >> >>>>>>>> > weeks? >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > Now would also be a good time to look over any other bugs with >> >>>>>>>> > PointFields and make a case if any should be considered >> blockers >> >>>>>>>> > for >> >>>>>>>> > 7.0. I think they all share a label: >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter >> >>>>>>>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > : So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to >> >>>>>>>> > > deprecate >> >>>>>>>> > > : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 >> release >> >>>>>>>> > > until >> >>>>>>>> > > : that's done, it's more than just updating the example >> schemas >> >>>>>>>> > > if we >> >>>>>>>> > > : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to >> fix >> >>>>>>>> > > the tests >> >>>>>>>> > > : and also fix bugs that are going to be really painful for >> >>>>>>>> > > users. And >> >>>>>>>> > > : to get all that done soon, we definitely need some more >> >>>>>>>> > > volunteers. >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807 with tips on how >> >>>>>>>> > > people can >> >>>>>>>> > > help out... >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807 >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > -Hoss >> >>>>>>>> > > http://www.lucidworks.com/ >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>>>>>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>>>>>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>>>>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>>>>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- >> >>>>>> - Mark >> >>>>>> about.me/markrmiller >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> - Mark >> >>>> about.me/markrmiller >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > ----------------------------------------------------- >> > Noble Paul >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> >> >
