> But if you're working with a different assumption - that just the existence of the branch does not stop Dat from still merging his work and the work being included in 8.0 - then I agree, waiting for him to merge doesn't need to stop the creation of the branch.
Yes that's my reasoning. This issue is a blocker so we won't release without it but we can work on the branch in the meantime and let other people work on new features that are not targeted to 8. Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 à 20:51, Cassandra Targett <[email protected]> a écrit : > OK - I was making an assumption that the timeline for the first 8.0 RC > would be ASAP after the branch is created. > > It's a common perception that making a branch freezes adding new features > to the release, perhaps in an unofficial way (more of a courtesy rather > than a rule). But if you're working with a different assumption - that just > the existence of the branch does not stop Dat from still merging his work > and the work being included in 8.0 - then I agree, waiting for him to merge > doesn't need to stop the creation of the branch. > > If, however, once the branch is there people object to Dat merging his > work because it's "too late", then the branch shouldn't be created yet > because we want to really try to clear that blocker for 8.0. > > Cassandra > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:13 PM jim ferenczi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Ok thanks for answering. >> >> > - I think Solr needs a couple more weeks since the work Dat is doing >> isn't quite done yet. >> >> We can wait a few more weeks to create the branch but I don't think that >> one action (creating the branch) prevents the other (the work Dat is doing). >> HTTP/2 is one of the blocker for the release but it can be done in master >> and backported to the appropriate branch as any other feature ? We just >> need an issue with the blocker label to ensure that >> we don't miss it ;). Creating the branch early would also help in case >> you don't want to release all the work at once in 8.0.0. >> Next week was just a proposal, what I meant was soon because we target a >> release in a few months. >> >> >> Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 à 17:52, Cassandra Targett <[email protected]> >> a écrit : >> >>> IMO next week is a bit too soon for the branch - I think Solr needs a >>> couple more weeks since the work Dat is doing isn't quite done yet. >>> >>> Solr needs the HTTP/2 work Dat has been doing, and he told me yesterday >>> he feels it is nearly ready to be merged into master. However, it does >>> require a new release of Jetty to Solr is able to retain Kerberos >>> authentication support (Dat has been working with that team to help test >>> the changes Jetty needs to support Kerberos with HTTP/2). They should get >>> that release out soon, but we are dependent on them a little bit. >>> >>> He can hopefully reply with more details on his status and what else >>> needs to be done. >>> >>> Once Dat merges his work, IMO we should leave it in master for a little >>> bit. While he has been beasting and testing with Jenkins as he goes along, >>> I think it would be good to have all the regular master builds work on it >>> for a little bit also. >>> >>> Of the other blockers, the only other large-ish one is to fully remove >>> Trie* fields, which some of us also discussed yesterday and it seemed we >>> concluded that Solr isn't really ready to do that. The performance issues >>> with single value lookups are a major obstacle. It would be nice if someone >>> with a bit more experience with that could comment in the issue >>> (SOLR-12632) and/or unmark it as a blocker. >>> >>> Cassandra >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 8:38 AM Erick Erickson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I find 9 open blockers for 8.0: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20SOLR%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20AND%20status%20%3D%20OPEN >>>> >>>> As David mentioned, many of the SOlr committers are at Activate, which >>>> ends Thursday so feedback (and work) may be a bit delayed. >>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 8:11 AM David Smiley <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hi, >>>> > >>>> > Thanks for volunteering to do the 8.0 release Jim! >>>> > >>>> > Many of us are at the Activate Conference in Montreal. We had a >>>> committers meeting where we discussed some of the blockers. I think only a >>>> couple items were raised. I'll leave Dat to discuss the one on HTTP2. On >>>> the Solr nested docs front, I articulated one and we mostly came to a >>>> decision on how to do it. It's not "hard" just a matter of how to hook in >>>> some functionality so that it's user-friendly. I'll file an issue for >>>> this. Inexplicably I'm sheepish about marking issues "blocker" but I >>>> shouldn't be. I'll file that issue and look at another issue or two that >>>> ought to be blockers. Nothing is "hard" or tons of work that is in my >>>> sphere of work. >>>> > >>>> > On the Lucene side, I will commit >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7875 RE MultiFields >>>> either late tonight or tomorrow when I have time. It's ready to be >>>> committed; just sitting there. It's a minor thing but important to make >>>> this change now before 8.0. >>>> > >>>> > I personally plan to spend more time on the upcoming weeks on a few >>>> of these 8.0 things. >>>> > >>>> > ~ David >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:21 AM jim ferenczi <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi, >>>> >> We still have two blockers for the Lucene 8 release: >>>> >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7075?jql=(project%3D%22Lucene%20-%20Core%22%20%20OR%20project%3DSOLR)%20AND%20priority%3DBlocker%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20 >>>> >> We're planning to work on these issues in the coming days, are there >>>> any other blockers (not in the list) on Solr side. >>>> >> Now that Lucene 7.5 is released I'd like to create a Lucene 8 branch >>>> soon (next week for instance ? ). There are some work to do to make sure >>>> that all tests pass, add the new version... >>>> >> I can take care of it if there are no objections. Creating the >>>> branch in advance would help to stabilize this version (people can continue >>>> to work on new features that are not targeted for 8.0) and >>>> >> we can discuss the best date for the release when all blockers are >>>> resolved. What do you think ? >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Le mar. 18 sept. 2018 à 11:32, Adrien Grand <[email protected]> a >>>> écrit : >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Đạt, is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12639 the right >>>> issue for HTTP/2 support? Should we make it a blocker for 8.0? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Le lun. 3 sept. 2018 à 23:37, Adrien Grand <[email protected]> a >>>> écrit : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For the record here is the JIRA query for blockers that Erick >>>> referred to: >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12720?jql=(project%3D%22Lucene%20-%20Core%22%20%20OR%20project%3DSOLR)%20AND%20priority%3DBlocker%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le lun. 3 sept. 2018 à 10:36, jim ferenczi <[email protected]> >>>> a écrit : >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Ok thanks Đạt and Erick. I'll follow the blockers on Jira. Đạt >>>> do you have an issue opened for the HTTP/2 support ? >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Le ven. 31 août 2018 à 16:40, Erick Erickson < >>>> [email protected]> a écrit : >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> There's also the issue of what to do as far as removing Trie* >>>> support. >>>> >>>>>> I think there's a blocker JIRA. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> project = SOLR AND priority = Blocker AND resolution = Unresolved >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Shows 6 blockers >>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 4:12 AM Đạt Cao Mạnh < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > Hi Jim, >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > I really want to introduce the support of HTTP/2 into Solr 8.0 >>>> (currently cooked in jira/http2 branch). The changes of that branch are >>>> less than Star Burst effort and closer to be merged into master branch. >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > Thanks! >>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:55 PM jim ferenczi < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >> Hi all, >>>> >>>>>> >> I'd like to get some feedback regarding the upcoming >>>> Lucene/Solr 8 release. There are still some cleanups and docs to add on the >>>> Lucene side but it seems that all blockers are resolved. >>>> >>>>>> >> From a Solr perspective are there any important changes that >>>> need to be done or are we still good with the October target for the >>>> release ? Adrien mentioned the Star Burst effort some time ago, is it >>>> something that is planned for 8 ? >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >> Cheers, >>>> >>>>>> >> Jim >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >> Le mer. 1 août 2018 à 19:02, David Smiley < >>>> [email protected]> a écrit : >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> Yes, that new BKD/Points based code is definitely something >>>> we want in 8 or 7.5 -- it's a big deal. I think it would also be awesome >>>> if we had highlighter that could use the Weight.matches() API -- again for >>>> either 7.5 or 8. I'm working on this on the UnifiedHighlighter front and >>>> Alan from other aspects. >>>> >>>>>> >>> ~ David >>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM Adrien Grand < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> I was hoping that we would release some bits of this new >>>> support for geo shapes in 7.5 already. We are already very close to being >>>> able to index points, lines and polygons and query for intersection with an >>>> envelope. It would be nice to add support for other relations (eg. >>>> disjoint) and queries (eg. polygon) but the current work looks already >>>> useful to me. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Le mer. 1 août 2018 à 17:00, Robert Muir <[email protected]> >>>> a écrit : >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> My only other suggestion is we may want to get Nick's >>>> shape stuff into >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> the sandbox module at least for 8.0 so that it can be >>>> tested out. I >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> think it looks like that wouldn't delay any October target >>>> though? >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 9:51 AM, Adrien Grand < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > I'd like to revive this thread now that these new >>>> optimizations for >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > collection of top docs are more usable and enabled by >>>> default in >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > IndexSearcher ( >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8060). Any >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > feedback about starting to work towards releasing 8.0 >>>> and targeting October >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > 2018? >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > Le jeu. 21 juin 2018 à 09:31, Adrien Grand < >>>> [email protected]> a écrit : >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> Hi Robert, >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> I agree we need to make it more usable before 8.0. I >>>> would also like to >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> improve ReqOptSumScorer ( >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8204) >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> to leverage impacts so that queries that incorporate >>>> queries on feature >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> fields ( >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8197) in an optional >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> clause are also fast. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> Le jeu. 21 juin 2018 à 03:06, Robert Muir < >>>> [email protected]> a écrit : >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> How can the end user actually use the biggest new >>>> feature: impacts and >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> BMW? As far as I can tell, the issue to actually >>>> implement the >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> necessary API changes (IndexSearcher/TopDocs/etc) is >>>> still open and >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> unresolved, although there are some interesting ideas >>>> on it. This >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> seems like a really big missing piece, without a >>>> proper API, the stuff >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> is not really usable. I also can't imagine a situation >>>> where the API >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> could be introduced in a followup minor release >>>> because it would be >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> too invasive. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Adrien Grand < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > Hi all, >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > I would like to start discussing releasing >>>> Lucene/Solr 8.0. Lucene 8 >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > already >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > has some good changes around scoring, notably >>>> cleanups to >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > similarities[1][2][3], indexing of impacts[4], and >>>> an implementation of >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > Block-Max WAND[5] which, once combined, allow to run >>>> queries faster >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > when >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > total hit counts are not requested. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [1] >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8116 >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [2] >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8020 >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [3] >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8007 >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [4] >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4198 >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [5] >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8135 >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > In terms of bug fixes, there is also a bad relevancy >>>> bug[6] which is >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > only in >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > 8.0 because it required a breaking change[7] to be >>>> implemented. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [6] >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8031 >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [7] >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8134 >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > As usual, doing a new major release will also help >>>> age out old codecs, >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > which >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > in-turn make maintenance easier: 8.0 will no longer >>>> need to care about >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > the >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > fact that some codecs were initially implemented >>>> with a random-access >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > API >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > for doc values, that pre-7.0 indices encoded norms >>>> differently, or that >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > pre-6.2 indices could not record an index sort. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > I also expect that we will come up with ideas of >>>> things to do for 8.0 >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > as we >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > feel that the next major is getting closer. In terms >>>> of planning, I was >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > thinking that we could target something like october >>>> 2018, which would >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > be >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > 12-13 months after 7.0 and 3-4 months from now. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > From a Solr perspective, the main change I'm aware >>>> of that would be >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > worth >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > releasing a new major is the Star Burst effort. Is >>>> it something we want >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > to >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > get in for 8.0? >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > Adrien >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> 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] >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>> -- >>>> >>>>>> >>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, >>>> Speaker >>>> >>>>>> >>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: >>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>>>> >>>> > -- >>>> > Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker >>>> > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: >>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>>
