Hi David, I agree with Cassandra about using ref-guide for expressing our idea and our plan for a major version. But I also make some minor change to the wiki page about what we are gainning on switching to HTTP/2.
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 10:04 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > What should be done to get 8.0 version added to Docker Hub [0]? > Would this need to be done by Martijn Koster at Lucidworks? If so, can > someone please request him to take a look? > Or is this something that even we (@ Apache) can do too? > > [0] - https://hub.docker.com/_/solr/ > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 9:44 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On a different note, I realized 2 days back that the solr:latest on > > docker hub points to 7.7.1. What do we need to do to get 8.0 docker > > image on docker hub? > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 6:57 PM Cassandra Targett <casstarg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > I have a number of changes in a local branch for the 8.0 Ref Guide > page “Major Changes in Solr 8” about HTTP/2 which might help. I hadn’t > intended to push my branch, but I could if it helps. I also have a bunch of > unfinished content I started about nested documents, but tearing apart the > CHANGES.txt to figure out what is new and how that impacts upgrades is > incredibly painful and time-consuming, and I don’t have a ton of time these > days. This is why the 8.0 Ref Guide isn’t out yet. > > > > > > Tangentially, I feel like we need to work something else out about > Wiki release notes (and, remember, wiki.apache.org is going away really > soon now) and the Ref Guide. It’s odd to me that one person decides how to > present what’s new in the Wiki release notes, and someone else decides how > to present a whole other set of content about the same set of features for > the Ref Guide. Usually I skip the what’s new part for the minor releases, > but for major ones, there needs to be a comprehensive “here’s what’s new > and what’s changed” - we’ve done it for 5->6 and 6->7, it’s part of the > major version process now. > > > > > > Anyway, let me know if you want to see what I have so far, and I’ll > try to find some time to push it or make a patch. > > > On Apr 30, 2019, 8:00 AM -0500, David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com>, > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Dat, > > > > > > I plan to update Solr's release notes for 8.0 retroactively. > https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote80 has more info on nested docs; > I wrote this well over a month ago. Can you please enhance the part on > HTTP2 to be more informative? For example... what *benefit* does HTTP2 > bring to internode communication? I know you benchmarked things. Maybe > mention the road to full HTTP2 continues into 8.x? > > > > > > I'm sending this to the dev list so really anyone else can help like > list other major features... though I think maybe it's just these two. > > > > > > ~ David Smiley > > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > > From: David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> > > > Date: Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 9:34 AM > > > Subject: Re: Lucene/Solr 8.0 > > > To: Solr/Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org> > > > > > > > > > The Solr highlights section of the announcement is severely incomplete > as to appear embarrassing. > > > In the absence of time/effort to fix it should have simply been > omitted; the CHANGES.txt has details. > > > That would not have been embarrassing. > > > Maybe next time we could have a call to action about the release > highlights that coincides with the creation of the release branch; > > > that is a juncture in which the features are frozen and there's plenty > of time to update. > > > Last night I saw the call to action but it was woefully too late for > me to help. > > > > > > ~ David Smiley > > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:02 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >> I organized existing items of the Lucene release notes into sections > > >> and added a new item about FeatureField, > > >> LongPoint#newDistanceFeatureQuery and > > >> LatLonPoint#newDistanceFeatureQuery. > > >> > > >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 5:54 PM Alan Woodward <romseyg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Jim and I have created wiki pages for the 8.0 release highlights > here: > > >> > https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote80 > > >> > https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseNote80 > > >> > > > >> > Feel free to edit and improve them - the Solr one in particular > could do with some beefing up. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On 20 Feb 2019, at 11:37, Noble Paul <noble.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > I'm committing them, > > >> > Thanks Ishan > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 8:38 PM Alan Woodward <romseyg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Awesome, thank you Ishan! > > >> > > > >> > On 20 Feb 2019, at 09:15, Ishan Chattopadhyaya < > ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Would anyone like to volunteer to be release manager for 7.7.1? > > >> > > > >> > I can volunteer for 7.7.1. I'll start as soon as both these issues > are committed. > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 9:18 PM Alan Woodward <romseyg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > We have two Solr issues that are serious enough to warrant a 7.7.1 > release: SOLR-13248 and SOLR-13255. Given our backwards-compatibility > guarantees, we should do this release before we restart the 8.0.0 process. > > >> > > > >> > Would anyone like to volunteer to be release manager for 7.7.1? > Ideally we would get this done quickly so that I can continue releasing > 8.0.0. > > >> > > > >> > On 14 Feb 2019, at 20:37, Mikhail Khludnev <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:08 PM Mikhail Khludnev <m...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Thank you, Alan. Give me an hour. > > >> > > > >> > чт, 14 февр. 2019 г., 20:59 Alan Woodward romseyg...@gmail.com: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > OK, let’s do an RC2. When do you think you can have a fix in? > > >> > > > >> > Mikhail, will you be able to get your fix in soon as well? > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Nope. Don't wait for SOLR-13126, it turns to be more complicated. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On 14 Feb 2019, at 14:34, Shalin Shekhar Mangar < > shalinman...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Hi Alan, > > >> > > > >> > There is a work-around which is to change the default to using > legacy assignment using cluster properties. But I don't like the idea of > releasing something that we know is broken and asking everyone to set a > cluster property to workaround it. I'd rather just rollback the commits > that caused the problem and then release 8.0 > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:11 PM Alan Woodward <romseyg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Hi Shalin, > > >> > > > >> > I'm not familiar with this bit of code - is there a workaround > available? ie a way of using a different replica placement strategy when > creating a collection? If there is, I'd be tempted to continue with the > vote as is and then do an immediate 8.0.1 release once you have things > fixed, particularly if we’re going to require a 7.7.1 as well. > > >> > > > >> > On 14 Feb 2019, at 12:45, Shalin Shekhar Mangar < > shalinman...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Hi Alan, > > >> > > > >> > I opened SOLR-13248 a few minutes ago. It is a bad bug that should > be a blocker for 8.0 and might require a bug fix 7.7.1 release as well. In > the interest of time, I propose rolling back SOLR-12739 which caused these > issues. We can re-introduce it with proper fixes for the related issues in > 8.1. > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:45 PM Alan Woodward <romseyg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > The release candidate has already been built and voting is in > progress, so it’s missed the boat unless there’s a respin. It does look > like a nasty bug though, so if you have a fix then feel free too commit it > to the 8_0 branch in case we do an 8.0.1 release. > > >> > > > >> > On 14 Feb 2019, at 09:35, Mikhail Khludnev <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Does https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13126 fit for 8_0 ? > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:00 AM Alan Woodward < > romseyg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > I have no problem with bug-fixes and ref-guide changes on the 8_0 > branch. > > >> > > > >> > On 13 Feb 2019, at 22:25, Cassandra Targett <casstarg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > I’ll let Alan reply definitively, but IMO if branch_8_0 is closed > even to Ref Guide-only commits, we’re not going to have an 8.0 Ref Guide at > all since there’s a lot of editing yet to be done for it. > > >> > > > >> > Cassandra > > >> > On Feb 13, 2019, 4:20 PM -0600, David Smiley < > david.w.smi...@gmail.com>, wrote: > > >> > > > >> > I've been shepherding > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13129 which only touches the > Solr Ref Guide. Could the Ref Guide for 8.0 include this even if it's > committed after the 8.0 for the code? I could avoid touching CHANGES.txt > if that helps (it'd be of dubious value to users browsing the change list > any way). > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:43 AM Alan Woodward < > romseyg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Thanks for letting me know Jason. Your commit will have missed the > cut, yes, but I don’t think it matters that much. It will get picked up in > a respin or in any subsequent bug-fix release, and if RC1 passes the vote > then we can just alter CHANGES.txt > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On 13 Feb 2019, at 16:27, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowsk...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Hey Alan, > > >> > > > >> > I just committed a minor inconsequential bugfix > > >> > (1b6c8fa95ba8c5b0646f599132c8ffd20c697e72) to branch_8_0. I didn't > > >> > realize I was cutting it so close to your work on cutting RC1, but > > >> > from commits I see you made this morning preparing for the RC I > > >> > suspect I cut things _very_ close and just missed it. > > >> > > > >> > Hopefully my ill-timed commit to branch_8_0 doesn't create any > > >> > problems for you on the release end. I'm happy to do whatever's > > >> > easiest for you regarding that commit. It'd be nice to have it > > >> > included in 8.0, but it's not imperative by any means if I've > already > > >> > missed the first RC, or it's easier for you to omit from potential > > >> > subsequent RCs. Let me know if there's anything you'd like me to do > > >> > (revert it, etc.). At a minimum if it doesn't make 8.0 I'll need to > > >> > go back and update CHANGES.txt I think. > > >> > > > >> > Sorry again for the potential complication. I hate to be "that > guy". > > >> > Thanks for stepping up and handling the release. > > >> > > > >> > Best, > > >> > > > >> > Jason > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:52 AM jim ferenczi < > jim.feren...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Thanks for fixing Cassandra and sorry for the noise. I did this too > many times in the past so I just mechanically changed the redirect without > thinking of when or if the ref guide was also released. > > >> > I'll be more careful next time ;). > > >> > > > >> > On another note, now that 7.7 is out and that we're preparing the > release for 8.0 what do you think of removing/nuking the 7x branch. This > was already discussed some time ago > https://markmail.org/message/xl7vypkylhmeefhh but I don't think that we > reached a consensus and we have maybe new options with the move to gitbox. > One option discussed in the thread was to remove all files and add a README > that says that this branch is dead. I don't know if it's possible but we > could also make the branch protected in gitbox in order to avoid new > commits. What do you think ? Should we keep this branch and just consider > new commits as useless or should we try to "clean up" all Nx branches that > are not active anymore (5x, 6x, 7x) ? > > >> > > > >> > Jim > > >> > > > >> > Le mar. 12 févr. 2019 à 20:25, Cassandra Targett < > casstarg...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > I’d like to remind RMs that when finishing up a release, we can’t > just do a blanket find/replace in .htaccess to update the version. If we’re > not going to coordinate binary releases with Ref Guide releases, we need to > be careful not to change the redirects unless that version’s Ref Guide > release is also imminent. > > >> > > > >> > This is noted in the ReleaseToDo ( > https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo#Update_redirect_to_latest_Javadoc), > but I’ve seen it occur a little too soon for the past few releases…in those > cases, the Ref Guide release was pretty close so it didn’t matter that much. > > >> > > > >> > In this case, though, I haven’t had time to do a 7.7 Ref Guide so > it doesn’t exist yet (if it will ever be, I’m pretty swamped so someone > else needs to maybe take care of it), but all non-version specific Ref > Guide link is now being routed to a non-existent 7.7 path. It’s easy to > fix, but we have an easy way to avoid routing people to dead links. > > >> > > > >> > Cassandra > > >> > On Feb 8, 2019, 3:58 AM -0600, Alan Woodward <romseyg...@gmail.com>, > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Once 7.7 is out the door, we should get on with releasing 8.0. I > volunteer to be the manager for this round. My current plan is to build a > release candidate early next week, as soon as the 7.7 release has been > announced. > > >> > > > >> > On 8 Feb 2019, at 09:07, Alan Woodward <romseyg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > It is a shame, I agree, but some of this stuff has been deprecated > since 3.6, so another release cycle won’t hurt :). We should prioritise > cleaning this stuff up once 8.0 is out of the door though. > > >> > > > >> > On 8 Feb 2019, at 07:27, David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Okay. I suppose the issue is that it's simply too late in the 8.0 > cycle to remove things that have been deprecated in previous releases? > solr.LatLonType is one example. It's a shame to keep around such things > further. > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 1:03 AM Alan Woodward <romseyg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Not quite - the plan is to remove things entirely in 9.0, but we > may need to back port some extra deprecations to 8x. We don’t necessarily > need them in 8.0 though - we can deprecate in 8.1 and remove in 9 without > any problems. I opened the issues to ensure that we didn’t keep carrying > deprecated code through any further releases. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On 7 Feb 2019, at 06:43, David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > I want to ensure people are aware of two issues "Remove deprecated > code in master" that Alan filed: > > >> > > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13138 > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8638 > > >> > There's a "master-deprecations" branch as well. > > >> > > > >> > Although both issues are marked "master (9.0)", I think the intent > is actually 8.0 so that we are finally rid of the deprecated code? > > >> > > > >> > ~ David > > >> > > > >> > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 7:25 AM Kevin Risden <kris...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > SOLR-9515 - Hadoop 3 upgrade has been merged to master, 8x, and 8.0. > > >> > I'm keeping any eye on the builds this weekend but all indications > are > > >> > no issues so far. > > >> > > > >> > Kevin Risden > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:46 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Nick, this change seems to be causing test failures. Can you have a > look? > > >> > > > >> > See eg. > https://builds.apache.org/job/Lucene-Solr-SmokeRelease-8.x/15/console. > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:27 AM Nicholas Knize <nkn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Thank you Jim. LUCENE-8669 has been merged. > > >> > > > >> > - Nick > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:36 PM jim ferenczi < > jim.feren...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Sure Nick, I am not aware of other blockers for 7.7 so I'll start > the first RC when your patch is merged. > > >> > Kevin, this looks like a big change so I am not sure if it's a good > idea to rush this in for 8.0. Would it be safer to target another version > in order to take some time to ensure that it's not breaking anything ? I > guess that your concern is that a change like this should happen in a major > version but I wonder if it's worth the risk. I don't know this part of the > code and the implications of such a change so I let you decide what we > should do here but let's not delay the release if we realize that this > change requires more than a few days to be merged. > > >> > > > >> > Le mer. 30 janv. 2019 à 20:25, Nicholas Knize <nkn...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Hey Jim, > > >> > > > >> > I just added https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8669 > along with a pretty straightforward patch. This is a critical one that I > think needs to be in for 7.7 and 8.0. Can I set this as a blocker? > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 1:07 PM > > >> > > > >> > Kevin Risden <kris...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Jim, > > >> > > > >> > Since 7.7 needs to be released before 8.0 does that leave time to > get > > >> > SOLR-9515 - Hadoop 3 upgrade into 8.0? I have a PR updated and it is > > >> > currently under review. > > >> > > > >> > Should I set the SOLR-9515 as a blocker for 8.0? I'm curious if > others > > >> > feel this should make it into 8.0 or not. > > >> > > > >> > Kevin Risden > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:15 AM jim ferenczi < > jim.feren...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > I had to revert the version bump for 8.0 (8.1) on branch_8x because > we don't handle two concurrent releases in our tests ( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8665). > > >> > Since we want to release 7.7 first I created the Jenkins job for > this version only and will build the first candidate for this version later > this week if there are no objection. > > >> > I'll restore the version bump for 8.0 when 7.7 is out. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Le mar. 29 janv. 2019 à 14:43, jim ferenczi <jim.feren...@gmail.com> > a écrit : > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Hi, > > >> > Hearing no objection I created the branches for 8.0 and 7.7. I'll > now create the Jenkins tasks for these versions, Uwe can you also add them > to the Policeman's Jenkins job ? > > >> > This also means that the feature freeze phase has started for both > versions (7.7 and 8.0): > > >> > > > >> > No new features may be committed to the branch. > > >> > Documentation patches, build patches and serious bug fixes may be > committed to the branch. However, you should submit all patches you want to > commit to Jira first to give others the chance to review and possibly vote > against the patch. Keep in mind that it is our main intention to keep the > branch as stable as possible. > > >> > All patches that are intended for the branch should first be > committed to the unstable branch, merged into the stable branch, and then > into the current release branch. > > >> > Normal unstable and stable branch development may continue as > usual. However, if you plan to commit a big change to the unstable branch > while the branch feature freeze is in effect, think twice: can't the > addition wait a couple more days? Merges of bug fixes into the branch may > become more difficult. > > >> > Only Jira issues with Fix version "X.Y" and priority "Blocker" will > delay a release candidate build. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Jim > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Le lun. 28 janv. 2019 à 13:54, Tommaso Teofili < > tommaso.teof...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > sure, thanks Jim! > > >> > > > >> > Tommaso > > >> > > > >> > Il giorno lun 28 gen 2019 alle ore 10:35 jim ferenczi > > >> > <jim.feren...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Go ahead Tommaso the branch is not created yet. > > >> > The plan is to create the branches (7.7 and 8.0) tomorrow or > wednesday and to announce the feature freeze the same day. > > >> > For blocker issues that are still open this leaves another week to > work on a patch and we can update the status at the end of the week in > order to decide if we can start the first build candidate > > >> > early next week. Would that work for you ? > > >> > > > >> > Le lun. 28 janv. 2019 à 10:19, Tommaso Teofili < > tommaso.teof...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > 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 -- > > >> > > > >> > &g > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Sincerely yours > > >> > Mikhail Khludnev > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > ----------------------------------------------------- > > >> > 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 > > >> > -- *Best regards,* *Cao Mạnh Đạt* *D.O.B : 31-07-1991Cell: (+84) 946.328.329E-mail: caomanhdat...@gmail.com <caomanhdat...@gmail.com>*
