On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:31 pm Robert Muir, <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, I just don't understand the implications of what you are suggesting. > > The code in question is lucene+solr combined, and the build system and > packaging and everything only knows how to do that. So are you forking > all the lucene code into the solr repo too? >
Need to split it up and remove the Lucene code from there in order to be able to release Solr independently. We can do so later (I'm currently on travel), if/when needed. > > I don't really understand your need to have a branch_8x. we can nuke > it, and you can do any of this from a branch_8_11 some other day, no? > I guess we can, just don't know the divergence. Just to be on the safer side, don't want to lose access to the branch_8x over a weekend before I or persons more knowledgeable (on the differences between the branches) than I get a chance to review the situation. Hence, I just copied the branch there for the moment. > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:57 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either. > > I never expressed any intention of doing so. Besides, is it even > possible (ASF policies wise)? > > > > This is a weekend, and I feel bad holding up the 9.0 release (since this > is a blocker). Solr PMC can decide later on Solr's releases, and hence I'm > going to copy this branch_8x over to Solr repo's "lucene-solr/branch_8x" > branch. > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:14 PM Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either. > >> > >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:42 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Sounds good, Rob. Should I copy over the branch_8x to the solr repo > until we have further clarity on the course of action to be taken with Solr > releases? > >> > > >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:10 pm Robert Muir, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Nope, it isn't crazy. I am trying to ensure the backwards > >> >> compatibility that we have is on solid, sustainable footing before we > >> >> release a new version promising double the back compat. > >> >> > >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:37 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > Solr doesn't have backward compatability tests, only Lucene has. > >> >> > > >> >> > That's why I proposed leaving the door open for a Solr 8.12 > release based on already released 8.11 Lucene and not releasing any further > 8.x minor version release of Lucene. > >> >> > > >> >> > As I said, if that's problematic to do on branch_8x of > lucene-solr, then we can do so in the solr repo. If some urgent action to > nuke the branch is to be taken, please give some time to explore > alternatives that affect Solr's developement. > >> >> > > >> >> > Holding up Lucene 9.0 release for removal of branch_8x is lunacy, > not the continued existence of this branch in the shared repo, since a > future course of action should be deliberated upon before nuking the branch. > >> >> > > >> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 5:34 pm Uwe Schindler, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Hi, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I fully agree with Robert here. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of this. > Once we released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index file > format will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0 will > refuse to read. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have index > format changes and minor version numbers are not persisted. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still want one, > hold 9.0 release and add precautions for this. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr and just > add Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so Solr > 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to it > in GitHub. Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene main I to > branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes! > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Uwe > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir < > [email protected]>: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards compatibility > testing > >> >> >>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat with > >> >> >>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > >> >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter > must provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the > change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, > etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight." > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> I think we should remove this branch. > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i > can > >> >> >>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule. > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards > >> >> >>>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on > people. > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not > going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x? > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> ________________________________ > >> >> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> >> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>> ________________________________ > >> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> >> >>> > >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> Uwe Schindler > >> >> >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen > >> >> >> https://www.thetaphi.de >
