+1 to uwe's suggestion On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 10:42 PM Noble Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think this is a reasonable suggestion Uwe. > > - We don't need to bring Gradle to 8.x > - We can release 8.12 from a fork of 8.11. > - we don't need to keep the Lucene source files in that branch. We can > nuke it and just keep the Lucene binaries > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021, 8:49 AM Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> If this is really needed, I'd propose the following: >> >> - fork the branch_8_11 to solr's repo >> - delete all subdirectories below lucene, keep common-build and other >> stuff. >> - add a single ivy.xml there that refers to all lucene jars of 8.11.x >> (latest) >> - adapt solr's "copy-lucene-jars" ant task to copy the ivy output dir >> - delete the lucene stuff from release wizard. >> >> This is quick and easy. Adapting Gradle for a minor release is too hard. >> >> Am 21. November 2021 21:34:40 UTC schrieb Noble Paul < >> [email protected]>: >>> >>> All Solr users using 8x and they will need some time to get comfortable >>> with 9x . So, there is a good chance we may need to release an 8.12 based >>> on Lucene 8.11 >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021, 8:22 AM Adrien Grand <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 to making branch_8x read-only as Uwe suggested >>>> >>>> I think Uwe's other point is also important: if we ever wanted to do a >>>> Solr 8.12, it'd probably be a better option to fork the 8.11 branch than to >>>> try to reuse branch_8x. So we don't need to tie the decision about what we >>>> want to do with branch_8x with future plans around an 8.12 release? >>>> >>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:48 PM Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is of course all possible, but: WHY the heck do this? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lucene 9.0 will come out likely very soon. After that just update the >>>>> gradle file of Solr main and remove the temporary repository (better >>>>> comment it out). After that adapt some changes and release Solr 9.0. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From that point on both projects have a clear split point and >>>>> everybody can make sure that the backwards compatibility is handled >>>>> according to project’s needs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If the Solr 9.0 release is a intermediary point (not all deprecations >>>>> removed), release Solr 10.0 four months later, who cares? Solr 9.0 will be >>>>> the release with many new features and Java 11 as minimum requirement. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would really, really not start and fuck up the release process for >>>>> 8.x! Why not release 8.11.1 soon, if you have any changes in Solr to do? >>>>> Why do this release needs to be called 8.12? It is just a version number, >>>>> so why the heck this big issues? I won’t think that Solr will add any >>>>> major >>>>> features before Solr 9. So what is your exact problem? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, but this discussion is complete nonsense. Its just version >>>>> numbers and some hick-hack between two parties that disagree. Keep calm >>>>> and >>>>> don’t try to make it overcomplicated! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I never said that we should kill or delete branch_8x. It can stay >>>>> there forever. I just suggested to make it read-only and add a note. >>>>> Unless >>>>> there’s really a need to do some 8.12 release (in which case, I’d fork >>>>> 8.11 >>>>> branch and move Lucene) I see no reason to act and fuck up the >>>>> repositories >>>>> of both projects which have now a very clear state. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Uwe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> Uwe Schindler >>>>> >>>>> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen >>>>> >>>>> https://www.thetaphi.de >>>>> >>>>> eMail: [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Gus Heck <[email protected]> >>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 21, 2021 5:05 PM >>>>> *To:* dev <[email protected]> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: What should we do of branch_8x? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Release of Solr 8.12 It should require the current lucene-solr 8.x >>>>> branch to remove the lucene bits and declare a dependency on lucene 8.11 >>>>> lucene, that bit shouldn't be too hard if done soon... and the release >>>>> process for 8.x would not publish a lucene artifact which is likely the >>>>> harder bit. I think the option should be open assuming someone is willing >>>>> to do that work.What should not be an option is any further lucene >>>>> releases >>>>> on 8.x and I'd be very leery of any attempt to consume lucene 9.0 on Solr >>>>> 8.x >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Lucene guarantees are irrelevant unless someone contemplates >>>>> releasing an 8.12 lucene, and I really think that would require a positive >>>>> vote from the Lucene PMC (which sounds very unlikely since I see fingers >>>>> twitching over the -1 holsters there :) ) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So while I don't favor deleting the entire solr 8.x branch I think >>>>> it's now fine to remove lucene from it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To make things pretty, one could push the 8.x branch to the solr repo >>>>> AFTER lucene is removed, but that sounds like busy work unless there is >>>>> some formal or financial need to close the old repo. They are now fully >>>>> separate projects and what solr does with the non-lucene bits is not a >>>>> concern to lucene pmc (though almost all of us are on both committees of >>>>> course, but hat wearing etc..) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:43 AM Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I dunno, this seems really crazy to me. Splitting out solr into its >>>>> own repository and allowing it to be released independently from >>>>> lucene has already been done, lots of work :) Why not just move >>>>> forwards? >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:16 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > 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 >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) >>>>> >>>>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Adrien >>>> >>> -- >> Uwe Schindler >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen >> https://www.thetaphi.de >> > -- http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) http://www.the111shift.com (play)
