This is my copy/paste mistake - I work with Unixish shells all the time but rarely with a user interface and didn't have a chance to check. Let's see if anything else pops up but this is definitely worth a respin in my opinion as it's one of the fundamental reasons for the binary release to exist...
Dawid On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 12:05 PM Tomoko Uchida <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
