Thanks! I ran precommit and test after the commit and all's well.... On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
