I'd like to backport https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8659 (upgrade to OpenNLP 1.9.1) to 8x branch, if there's still time.
Regards, Tommaso Il giorno lun 28 gen 2019 alle ore 07:59 Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > Hi Noble, > > No it hasn't created yet. > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 3:55 AM Noble Paul <noble.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Is the branch already cut for 8.0? which is it? > > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 4:03 AM David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > I finally have a patch up for > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12768 (already marked as 8.0 > > > blocker) that I feel pretty good about. This provides a key part of the > > > nested document support. > > > I will work on some documentation for it this week -- SOLR-13129 > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:07 PM Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> I don't think it is critical for this to be a blocker for 8.0. If it > > >> gets fixed in 8.0.1 that's ok too, given this is an ooold bug. > > >> I think we should simply remove the buffering feature in the UI and > > >> replace it with an error message popup or something. > > >> I'll try to take a look next week. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect > > >> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com > > >> > > >> 25. jan. 2019 kl. 20:39 skrev Tomás Fernández Löbbe > > >> <tomasflo...@gmail.com>: > > >> > > >> I think the UI is an important Solr feature. As long as there is a > > >> reasonable time horizon for the issue being resolved I'm +1 on making it > > >> a blocker. I'm not familiar enough with the UI code to help either > > >> unfortunately. > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:24 AM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> It looks like someone tried to make it a blocker once before... And > > >>> it's actually a duplicate of an earlier issue > > >>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9818). I guess its a > > >>> question of whether or not overall quality has a bearing on the > > >>> decision to release. As it turns out the screen shot I posted to the > > >>> issue is less than half of the shards that eventually got created since > > >>> there was an outstanding queue of requests still processing at the > > >>> time. I'm now having to delete 50 or so cores, which luckily are small > > >>> 100 Mb initial testing cores, not the 20GB cores we'll be testing on in > > >>> the near future. It more or less makes it impossible to recommend the > > >>> use of the admin UI for anything other than read only observation of > > >>> the cluster. Now imagine someone leaves a browser window open and > > >>> forgets about it rather than browsing away or closing the window, not > > >>> knowing that it's silently pumping out requests after showing an > > >>> error... would completely hose a node, and until they tracked down the > > >>> source of the requests, (hope he didn't go home) it would be impossible > > >>> to resolve... > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 1:25 PM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Releasing a new major is very challenging on its own, I'd rather not > > >>>> call it a blocker and delay the release for it since this isn't a new > > >>>> regression in 8.0: it looks like a problem that has affected Solr > > >>>> since at least 6.3? I'm not familiar with the UI code at all, but > > >>>> maybe this is something that could get fixed before we build a RC? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 6:06 PM Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> > > > >>>> > I'd like to suggest that > > >>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10211 be promoted to > > >>>> > block 8.0. I just got burned by it a second time. > > >>>> > > > >>>> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:05 PM Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> > > >>>> > wrote: > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> Cool, > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> I am working on giving my best release time guess as possible on > > >>>> >> the FOSDEM conference! > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> Uwe > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> ----- > > >>>> >> Uwe Schindler > > >>>> >> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > > >>>> >> http://www.thetaphi.de > > >>>> >> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > -----Original Message----- > > >>>> >> > From: Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> > > >>>> >> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 5:33 PM > > >>>> >> > To: Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org> > > >>>> >> > Subject: Re: Lucene/Solr 8.0 > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> >> > +1 to release 7.7 and 8.0 in a row starting on the week of > > >>>> >> > February 4th. > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> >> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:23 PM jim ferenczi > > >>>> >> > <jim.feren...@gmail.com> > > >>>> >> > wrote: > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > Hi, > > >>>> >> > > As we agreed some time ago I'd like to start on releasing 8.0. > > >>>> >> > > The branch is > > >>>> >> > already created so we can start the process anytime now. Unless > > >>>> >> > there are > > >>>> >> > objections I'd like to start the feature freeze next week in > > >>>> >> > order to build the > > >>>> >> > first candidate the week after. > > >>>> >> > > We'll also need a 7.7 release but I think we can handle both > > >>>> >> > > with Alan so > > >>>> >> > the question now is whether we are ok to start the release > > >>>> >> > process or if there > > >>>> >> > are any blockers left ;). > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > > > >>>> >> > > Le mar. 15 janv. 2019 à 11:35, Alan Woodward > > >>>> >> > > <romseyg...@gmail.com> > > >>>> >> > a écrit : > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> I’ve started to work through the various deprecations on the > > >>>> >> > >> new master > > >>>> >> > branch. There are a lot of them, and I’m going to need some > > >>>> >> > assistance for > > >>>> >> > several of them, as it’s not entirely clear what to do. > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> I’ll open two overarching issues in JIRA, one for lucene and > > >>>> >> > >> one for Solr, > > >>>> >> > with lists of the deprecations that need to be removed in each > > >>>> >> > one. I’ll create > > >>>> >> > a shared branch on gitbox to work against, and push the changes > > >>>> >> > I’ve already > > >>>> >> > done there. We can then create individual JIRA issues for any > > >>>> >> > changes that > > >>>> >> > are more involved than just deleting code. > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> All assistance gratefully received, particularly for the Solr > > >>>> >> > >> deprecations > > >>>> >> > where there’s a lot of code I’m unfamiliar with. > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> On 8 Jan 2019, at 09:21, Alan Woodward <romseyg...@gmail.com> > > >>>> >> > wrote: > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> I think the current plan is to do a 7.7 release at the same > > >>>> >> > >> time as 8.0, to > > >>>> >> > handle any last-minute deprecations etc. So let’s keep those > > >>>> >> > jobs enabled > > >>>> >> > for now. > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> On 8 Jan 2019, at 09:10, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> > > >>>> >> > >> wrote: > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> Hi, > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> I will start and add the branch_8x jobs to Jenkins once I have > > >>>> >> > >> some time > > >>>> >> > later today. > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> The question: How to proceed with branch_7x? Should we stop > > >>>> >> > >> using it > > >>>> >> > and release 7.6.x only (so we would use branch_7_6 only for > > >>>> >> > bugfixes), or > > >>>> >> > are we planning to one more Lucene/Solr 7.7? In the latter case I > > >>>> >> > would keep > > >>>> >> > the jenkins jobs enabled for a while. > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> Uwe > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> ----- > > >>>> >> > >> Uwe Schindler > > >>>> >> > >> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > > >>>> >> > >> http://www.thetaphi.de > > >>>> >> > >> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> From: Alan Woodward <romseyg...@gmail.com> > > >>>> >> > >> Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 11:30 AM > > >>>> >> > >> To: dev@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> >> > >> Subject: Re: Lucene/Solr 8.0 > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> OK, Christmas caught up with me a bit… I’ve just created a > > >>>> >> > >> branch for 8x > > >>>> >> > from master, and am in the process of updating the master branch > > >>>> >> > to version > > >>>> >> > 9. New commits that should be included in the 8.0 release should > > >>>> >> > also be > > >>>> >> > back-ported to branch_8x from master. > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> This is not intended as a feature freeze, as I know there are > > >>>> >> > >> still some > > >>>> >> > things being worked on for 8.0; however, it should let us clean > > >>>> >> > up master by > > >>>> >> > removing as much deprecated code as possible, and give us an idea > > >>>> >> > of any > > >>>> >> > replacement work that needs to be done. > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> On 19 Dec 2018, at 15:13, David Smiley > > >>>> >> > >> <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> > > >>>> >> > wrote: > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> January. > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 2:04 AM S G <sg.online.em...@gmail.com> > > >>>> >> > wrote: > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> It would be nice to see Solr 8 in January soon as there is an > > >>>> >> > >> enhancement > > >>>> >> > on nested-documents we are waiting to get our hands on. > > >>>> >> > >> Any idea when Solr 8 would be out ? > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> Thx > > >>>> >> > >> SG > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:34 PM David Smiley > > >>>> >> > <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> I see 10 JIRA issues matching this filter: project in (SOLR, > > >>>> >> > >> LUCENE) AND > > >>>> >> > priority = Blocker and status = open and fixVersion = "master > > >>>> >> > (8.0)" > > >>>> >> > >> click here: > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20in%20(SOLR%2C%20LU > > >>>> >> > CENE)%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20and%20status%20%3D%2 > > >>>> >> > 0open%20and%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%22master%20(8.0)%22%20 > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> Thru the end of the month, I intend to work on those issues > > >>>> >> > >> not yet > > >>>> >> > assigned. > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 4:51 AM Adrien Grand > > >>>> >> > >> <jpou...@gmail.com> > > >>>> >> > wrote: > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> +1 > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:38 AM Alan Woodward > > >>>> >> > <romseyg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> >> > >> > > > >>>> >> > >> > Hi all, > > >>>> >> > >> > > > >>>> >> > >> > Now that 7.6 is out of the door (thanks Nick!) we should > > >>>> >> > >> > think about > > >>>> >> > cutting the 8.0 branch and moving master to 9.0. I’ll volunteer > > >>>> >> > to create the > > >>>> >> > branch this week - say Wednesday? Then we should have some time > > >>>> >> > to > > >>>> >> > clean up the master branch and uncover anything that still needs > > >>>> >> > to be done > > >>>> >> > on 8.0 before we start the release process next year. > > >>>> >> > >> > > > >>>> >> > >> > On 22 Oct 2018, at 18:12, Cassandra Targett > > >>>> >> > >> > <casstarg...@gmail.com> > > >>>> >> > wrote: > > >>>> >> > >> > > > >>>> >> > >> > I'm a bit delayed, but +1 on the 7.6 and 8.0 plan from me > > >>>> >> > >> > too. > > >>>> >> > >> > > > >>>> >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 7:18 AM Erick Erickson > > >>>> >> > <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> +1, this gives us all a chance to prioritize getting the > > >>>> >> > >> >> blockers out > > >>>> >> > >> >> of the way in a careful manner. > > >>>> >> > >> >> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 7:56 AM jim ferenczi > > >>>> >> > >> >> <jim.feren...@gmail.com> > > >>>> >> > wrote: > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > > >>>> >> > >> >> > +1 too. With this new perspective we could create the > > >>>> >> > >> >> > branch just > > >>>> >> > after the 7.6 release and target the 8.0 release for January 2019 > > >>>> >> > which gives > > >>>> >> > almost 3 month to finish the blockers ? > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > > >>>> >> > >> >> > Le jeu. 18 oct. 2018 à 23:56, David Smiley > > >>>> >> > <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > >>>> >> > >> >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >> +1 to a 7.6 —lots of stuff in there > > >>>> >> > >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:47 PM Nicholas Knize > > >>>> >> > <nkn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>> If we're planning to postpone cutting an 8.0 branch > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>> until a few > > >>>> >> > weeks from now then I'd like to propose (and volunteer to RM) a > > >>>> >> > 7.6 release > > >>>> >> > targeted for late November or early December (following the > > >>>> >> > typical 2 month > > >>>> >> > release pattern). It feels like this might give a little > > >>>> >> > breathing room for > > >>>> >> > finishing up 8.0 blockers? And looking at the change log there > > >>>> >> > appear to be a > > >>>> >> > healthy list of features, bug fixes, and improvements to both > > >>>> >> > Solr and Lucene > > >>>> >> > that warrant a 7.6 release? Personally I wouldn't mind releasing > > >>>> >> > the > > >>>> >> > LatLonShape encoding changes in LUCENE-8521 and selective > > >>>> >> > indexing work > > >>>> >> > done in LUCENE-8496. Any objections or thoughts? > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>> - Nick > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 5:32 AM Đạt Cao Mạnh > > >>>> >> > <caomanhdat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>> Thanks Cassandra and Jim, > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>> I created a blocker issue for Solr 8.0 SOLR-12883, > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>> currently in > > >>>> >> > jira/http2 branch there are a draft-unmature implementation of > > >>>> >> > SPNEGO > > >>>> >> > authentication which enough to makes the test pass, this > > >>>> >> > implementation will > > >>>> >> > be removed when SOLR-12883 gets resolved . Therefore I don't see > > >>>> >> > any > > >>>> >> > problem on merging jira/http2 to master branch in the next week. > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 2:33 AM jim ferenczi > > >>>> >> > <jim.feren...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>> > 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 > > >>>> >> > <casstarg...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>> >> > <jim.feren...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>> >> > <casstarg...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>> >> > <erickerick...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>> >> > <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>> >> > <jim.feren...@gmail.com> 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%3DBlocke > > >>>> >> > r%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 > > >>>> >> > <jpou...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>> >> > <jpou...@gmail.com> 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%3DBlocke > > >>>> >> > r%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20 > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> Le lun. 3 sept. 2018 à 10:36, jim ferenczi > > >>>> >> > <jim.feren...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>> >> > <erickerick...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>> >> > <caomanhdat...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>> >> > <jim.feren...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>> >> > <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>> >> > <jpou...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>> >> > <rcm...@gmail.com> 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 <jpou...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>> >> > <jpou...@gmail.com> 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 > > >>>> >> > <rcm...@gmail.com> 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 <jpou...@gmail.com> 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: dev- > > >>>> >> > unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> dev- > > >>>> >> > h...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> >> > ---------- > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev- > > >>>> >> > unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev- > > >>>> >> > h...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> -- > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> Consultant, > > >>>> >> > Developer, Author, Speaker > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> LinkedIn: > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > >>>> >> > | Book: http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> >> > - > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev- > > >>>> >> > unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev- > > >>>> >> > h...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > -- > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > Developer, > > >>>> >> > Author, Speaker > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > Book: > > >>>> >> > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev- > > >>>> >> > unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev- > > >>>> >> > h...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>> -- > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>> Nicholas Knize, Ph.D., GISP > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>> Geospatial Software Guy | Elasticsearch > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>> Apache Lucene Committer > > >>>> >> > >> >> >>> nkn...@apache.org > > >>>> >> > >> >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> >> -- > > >>>> >> > >> >> >> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, > > >>>> >> > >> >> >> Author, > > >>>> >> > Speaker > > >>>> >> > >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: > > >>>> >> > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> >> > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> >> > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> > >> > > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> -- > > >>>> >> > >> Adrien > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> >> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> -- > > >>>> >> > >> Lucene/Solr Search Committer (PMC), Developer, Author, Speaker > > >>>> >> > >> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: > > >>>> >> > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> -- > > >>>> >> > >> Lucene/Solr Search Committer (PMC), Developer, Author, Speaker > > >>>> >> > >> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: > > >>>> >> > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > >> > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> >> > -- > > >>>> >> > Adrien > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> >> > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > -- > > >>>> > http://www.the111shift.com > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> Adrien > > >>>> > > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> http://www.the111shift.com > > >> > > >> > > > -- > > > Lucene/Solr Search Committer (PMC), Developer, Author, Speaker > > > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: > > > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > > > > > > > > -- > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Noble Paul > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > -- > Adrien > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
