SUCCESS! [0:25:27.340580]

I noticed the Luke start script for *nix does not work and pushed a
fix [1] on main and branch_9x. The launch script for Windows works
well.
I am fine with the release candidate - it is a minor shell script bug
and I think users can easily make a patch - but wanted to give notice
of that, just in case.

[1] 
https://github.com/apache/lucene/commit/4193bcbc02313c82afcf8cf9e2d14e47466cb1c3

Tomoko

2021年11月22日(月) 6:18 Adrien Grand <[email protected]>:
>
> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 
>> > >> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 
>> > >> > >> <[email protected]>:
>> > >> > >>>
>> > >> > >>> 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected]
>> > >> > >>>>
>> > >> > >>>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > >> > >>>> > From: Adrien Grand <[email protected]>
>> > >> > >>>> > Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 9:25 AM
>> > >> > >>>> > To: Lucene Dev <[email protected]>
>> > >> > >>>> > 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: [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]
>> > >>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>
>
> --
> Adrien

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to