> Makes me feel it would be OK to handle this cleanup asynchronously to the 9.0 release. +1. It is unreasonable to hold up the 9.0 release for this.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:03 PM Michael Sokolov <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 to remove all content and leave behind a README in 8.x and 7.x, and > it sounds like adding the .asf..yaml file could even prevent further > commits? > > I hope there weren't any consequences of having a few unintended > commits in the 7x branch. Makes me feel it would be OK to handle this > cleanup asynchronously to the 9.0 release. > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 10:14 AM Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I checked a bit: branch_7x is also still alive and has some accidental > commits in it. So maybe we should do the same there. > > > > In general if we change this, don't forget to change github workflows: > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/.github/workflows/ant.yml > > > > Side note: I am missing the .asf.yaml file in the master branch of old > repo. Where is this information stored? This file was there also to protect > branches from writing (at least in github): > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/Git+-+.asf.yaml+features#Git.asf.yamlfeatures-BranchProtection > > > > Uwe > > > > ----- > > Uwe Schindler > > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > > https://www.thetaphi.de > > eMail: [email protected] > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Adrien Grand <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 2:02 PM > > > To: Lucene Dev <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: What should we do of branch_8x? > > > > > > It looks like there is now general agreement on removing branch_8x? > > > > > > I wonder if we should actually remove it, which is prone to > > > re-creating the branch by mistake, vs. replacing the content of the > > > repository with a README that says that this branch is no longer under > > > development like we did for the `master` branch. > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 5:09 PM Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 to remove / lock branch_8x in the lucene-solr repo, i.e. there > will not be an > > > 8.12 release by Lucene PMC. > > > > > > > > Whether Solr needs to release an 8.12 from own repos or not can be > > > discussed in dev@solr if/when needed. So far there is only loose > talk, and I > > > think Solr PMC's energy should be devoted to the Solr 9.0 release. > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > 22. nov. 2021 kl. 08:28 skrev Atri Sharma <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > +1, agree with Uwe. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 12:39 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> +1 to Uwe's suggestion > > > > >> > > > > >> On Mon, 22 Nov, 2021, 11:13 am Gus Heck, <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> +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: dev- > > > [email protected] > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev- > > > [email protected] > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________ > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev- > > > [email protected] > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev- > > > [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) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Atri > > > > > Apache Concerted > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > 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] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
