>I don't think it can be said what committers do and don't do with regards to running Solr. All of us would answer this differently and at different points in time.
" I have run it in one large cluster, so it is certified to be bug free/stable" I don't think it's a reasonable approach. We need as much feedback from our users because each of them stress Solr in a different way. This is not to suggest that committers are not doing testing or their tests are not valid. When I talk to the committers out here they say they do not see any performance stability issues at all. But, my client reports issues on a day to day basis. > Definitely publish a Docker image BTW -- it's the best way to try out any software. Docker is not a big requirement for large scale installations. Most of them already have their own install scripts. Availability of docker is not important for them. If a user is only encouraged to install Solr because of a docker image , most likely they are not running a large enough cluster On Tue, Oct 6, 2020, 6:30 AM David Smiley <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks so much for your responses Ishan... I'm getting much more > information in this thread than my attempts to get questions answered on > the JIRA issue months ago. And especially, thank you for volunteering for > the difficult porting efforts! > > Tomas said: > >> I do agree with the previous comments that calling it "Solr 10" (even >> with the "-alpha") would confuse users, maybe use "reference"? or maybe >> something in reference to SOLR-14788? >> > > I have the opposite opinion. This word "reference" is baffling to me > despite whatever Mark's explanation is. I like the justification Ishan > gave for 10-alpha and I don't think I could re-phrase his justification any > better. *If* the release was _not_ official (thus wouldn't show up in the > usual places anyone would look for a release), I think it would alleviate > that confusion concern even more, although I think "alpha" ought to be > enough of a signal not to use it without digging deeper on what's going on. > > Alex then Ishan said: > >> > Maybe we could release it to >> > committers community first and dogfood it "internally"? >> >> Alex: It is meaningless. Committers don't run large scale installations. >> We barely even have time to take care of running unit tests before >> destabilizing our builds. We are not the right audience. However, we all >> can anyway check out the branch and start playing with it, even without a >> release. There are orgs that don't want to install any code that wasn't >> officially released; this release is geared towards them (to help us test >> this at their scale). >> > > I don't think it can be said what committers do and don't do with regards > to running Solr. All of us would answer this differently and at different > points in time. From time to time, though not at present, I've been well > positioned to try out a new version of Solr in a stage/test environment to > see how it goes. (Putting on my Salesforce metaphorical hat...) Even > though I'm not able to deploy it in a realistic way today, I'm able to run > a battery of tests to see if one of the features we depend on have changed > or is broken. That's useful feedback to an alpha release! And even though > I'm saying I'm not well positioned to try out some new Solr release in a > production-ish setting now, it's something I could make a good case for > internally since upgrades take a lot of effort where I work. It's in our > interest for SolrCloud to be very stable (of course). > > Regardless, I think what you're driving at Ishan is that you want an > "official" release -- one that goes through the whole ceremony. You > believe that people would be more likely to use it. I think all we need to > do is announce (similar to a real release) that there is some unofficial > alpha distribution and that we want to solicit your feedback -- basically, > help us find bugs. Definitely publish a Docker image BTW -- it's the best > way to try out any software. I'm -0 on doing an official release for alpha > software because it's unnecessary to achieve the goals and somewhat > confusing. I think the Solr 4 alpha/beta situation was different -- it was > not some fork a committer was maintaining; it was the master branch of its > time, and it was destined to be the very next release, not some possible > future release. > > ~ David Smiley > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >
