No problem, I'll pick up your commit. :-) On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Erick Erickson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Committed now. > > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Erick Erickson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Michael: Good catch. Have I mentioned lately that Git and I don't get >> along? Apparently I was in some weird state when I tried to push. >> >> Ishan: Many apologies, but I'll have to push again, is it too late to >> re-spin? >> >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Here are the logs of two failed runs, FYI. >>> http://textsearch.io/tests.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64) >>> http://textsearch.io/tests2.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64) >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> FYI, I've been struggling to run tests for past 4-5 hours. About 10-15 >>>> of them failed on every run; I tried all the branches, variety of different >>>> machines (Intel i7 Haswell-E, Ryzen 1700, Threadripper 1950X). My JDK >>>> version on all of these are 8u144. >>>> >>>> Finally, figured out that all my machines had the latest >>>> 4.12.14-300.fc26.x86_64 or 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64 kernels. When I >>>> downgraded the kernel to 4.11.6-201.fc25.x86_64, the tests started running >>>> as usual. Now, I'll try to build the RC for 6.6.2 on this kernel. Is this a >>>> known issue? >>>> >>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Erick Erickson < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Done both for 6.6 and 6x >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sure Erick, please go ahead. >>>>>> I'll start the release later today. >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Ishan >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Erick Erickson < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ishan: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing it. >>>>>>> Give me a few. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt. Currently >>>>>>> it's in 7.0.1 and 7.1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and >>>>>>> leaving it in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear >>>>>>> back from you sooner. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Erick >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sounds good. Thank you! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM >>>>>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: 6.6.2 Release >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in? I understand if the >>>>>>>> answer is no. 😊 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so >>>>>>>> as to mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> is not committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly >>>>>>>> having it >>>>>>>> included in a later release, if needed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 to SOLR-11297. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * fixes a bug :-) and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in >>>>>>>> the process >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * helps users upgrade to later versions >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * documentation >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 to SOLR-11297 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not sure on SOLR-11450. Seems it might introduce a back-compat >>>>>>>> issue? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. >>>>>>>> Ditto if the answer is no.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's quite a safe fix though. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in? I understand if the answer >>>>>>>> is no. 😊 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM >>>>>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>>>>> *Subject:* 6.6.2 Release >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else >>>>>>>> wants to do so or has an objection. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ishan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-ple >>>>>>>> ase-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-exploit >>>>>>>> -has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: >>>>>>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
