Fair enough. I don't think this requires respinning so what I'll do is that I'll keep the vote thread open until we have a resolution on the issue.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 1:29 PM Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > and yes, I think it is reasonable to be a blocker. If we release 9.0, > promising 2 major versions of back compat, some of these options get > removed from the table. > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:23 AM Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks Ignacio, > > > > I see several choices, but the status quo of the testing is the problem. > > > > One choice is to not make any technical changes, but do something to > > prevent lucene from having to be compatible with 20 different versions > > :) For example, not supporting 2 major versions back would cut it in > > half. Another solution would be to release major versions faster so > > that we churn thru the versions at a more sustainable rate rather than > > having them pile up. > > > > Another option is to technically alter how the testing is done (as > > suggested on the issue). It could mean that some of them only run > > nightly or otherwise in jenkins. Which exact tests? I'm not sure, just > > as long as it becomes reasonable. > > > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:18 AM Ignacio Vera <iver...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Your issue has not been ignored but the problem is that the version of > the blocker has not been added so it doesn't appear in a search for > blockers in Lucene 9 :( > > > > > > Do we need to discuss this again? I thought we discussed and agreed on > increasing our backwards compatibility. My personal opinion is that it is a > natural step for mature software that it is increasingly used in production > environments. > > > > > > Regarding your concerns in the subject, there is a healthy discussion > in the issue and there are sound proposals to ease the pain and they can be > implemented any time, do you think it is still a blocker? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 12:59 PM Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Along the same lines of back compat woes, I'd like to see my blocker > > >> issue about back compat testing addressed in the release candidate, > > >> rather than simply ignored. > > >> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10168 > > >> > > >> With the 9.0 release, we are attempting to *double* our backwards > > >> compatibility guarantees (2 major versions), yet here we are > > >> discussing insane release strategies that can't be guaranteed/tested > > >> to work (8.12-after-9.0-etc), here we are with back compat tests > > >> taking a minute and half on branch_9_0! Imagine how long they will > > >> take for branch_9_9! > > >> > > >> When it comes to more back compat, people are quick to demand more of > > >> it every time. But when it comes to addressing the necessary issues to > > >> make it work...crickets. > > >> > > >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 5:11 AM Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > -1 to release lucene 9.0, as long as branch_8x remains. > > >> > > > >> > I know you made a separate thread for this, but it is a real > problem. > > >> > > > >> > The problem is that we can't support backwards compatibility like > > >> > this: releasing 9.0 then 8.12's and stuff. It isn't how the back > > >> > compat testing works, it is completely cowboy and unsupported. > > >> > > > >> > On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:19 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > I think we should remove it but I remember it was controversial > in the past. I'll start a separate thread. > > >> > > > > >> > > Le sam. 20 nov. 2021 à 14:38, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> a > écrit : > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Yes. But we won't have a 8.12 release so I assume the branch_8x > is dead. Maybe we should dass a note to it's readme or delete it? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Uwe > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Am 20. November 2021 13:15:23 UTC schrieb Adrien Grand < > jpou...@gmail.com>: > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> We need to keep the 8.11 jobs, but I think they can be > disabled. We typically only enable them when we start discussing doing a > new patch release? > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> Le sam. 20 nov. 2021 à 12:51, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> > a écrit : > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> Hi, > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> I setup my usual release tester job on Policeman Jenkins and > it succeeded: > > >> > >>>> SUCCESS! [0:19:00.801641] > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> See here for log: > https://jenkins.thetaphi.de/job/Lucene-Release-Tester/4/console > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> So it looks like technically the release is fine. I will wait > a bit with my +1, because I wanted to manually check the artifacts and > javadocs first. > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> I also enabled the 9.0 and 9.x builds on Policeman Jenkins > (sorry for the delay). At the same time I disabled 8.x builds. If Solr > people still need them we can enable them. But I think the only ones we > need now are 8.11.x ones, right? > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> Uwe > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> ----- > > >> > >>>> Uwe Schindler > > >> > >>>> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > > >> > >>>> https://www.thetaphi.de > > >> > >>>> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> > -----Original Message----- > > >> > >>>> > From: Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> > > >> > >>>> > Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 9:25 AM > > >> > >>>> > To: Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org> > > >> > >>>> > Subject: [VOTE] Release Lucene 9.0.0 RC1 > > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >>>> > Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene 9.0.0. > > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >>>> > The artifacts can be downloaded from: > > >> > >>>> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.0.0-RC1-rev- > > >> > >>>> > 903ee94dc50643299c15dfa954410f3ee4d62075 > > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >>>> > You can run the smoke tester directly with this command: > > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >>>> > python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py \ > > >> > >>>> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-9.0.0-RC1-rev- > > >> > >>>> > 903ee94dc50643299c15dfa954410f3ee4d62075 > > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >>>> > The vote will be open until 2021-11-24 09:00 UTC. > > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >>>> > [ ] +1 approve > > >> > >>>> > [ ] +0 no opinion > > >> > >>>> > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >>>> > Here is my +1 > > >> > >>>> > > > >> > >>>> > -- > > >> > >>>> > 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 > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> -- > > >> > >> Uwe Schindler > > >> > >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen > > >> > >> https://www.thetaphi.de > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> 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 > > -- Adrien
