In my personal opinion: 
We should wait until Lucene 9 is released and then switch to a fixed version. 
This was the plan from beginning and is also fine if it takes more months or 
half a year until Lucene releases 9.0.

The current behaviour is not bad: If Lucene changes, Jenkins detects a failure 
and we can open issue. This is not that different from before.
The only problem I see is that suddenly a developer may be confronted with a 
compile failure caused by Gradle suddenly deciding that 24 hours are over and 
it needs to look for new snapshots.

How about adding a system property that allows to use a specific snapshot 
version? Or maybe something to disable autoupdate on developer's machines?

Uwe

-----
Uwe Schindler
Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
https://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: [email protected]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dawid Weiss <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 2:50 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Solr fails with current lucene-9.0.0-SNAPSHOT (LUCENE-9387)
> 
> You could ask the infra team what the policy of snapshot retaining is.
> I see some very old entries here:
> http://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/apache/lucene/
> 
> but 9.0.0-SNAPSHOT only has a few. It's probably the count of releases
> under a given version (not the age) that matters.
> 
> D.
> 
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:42 PM Jason Gerlowski <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > You can pin the dependency to a particular snapshot revision... the 
> > > problem
> is those revisions don't stay in snapshot repositories forever
> >
> > Ah, I see.  Presumably Solr could avoid this though by
> > copying/republishing the particular snapshot we want our builds to use
> > under the "org.apache.solr" groupId.  e.g. Until 9.0 happens, Solr
> > builds could rely on
> > "org.apache.solr:lucene-core-frozen:9.0.0-SNAPSHOT" which Solr devs
> > update at their leisure to point to different actual Lucene snapshots.
> >
> > If 9.0.0 is going to happen in the short term that's probably more
> > trouble than it's worth.  But if Solr's build breaks a few more times
> > and 9.0.0 still seems distant it may seem worth the hassle at some
> > point.  But that's a bridge we can cross if we come to it I guess, and
> > I'm thread hijacking at this point.  Thanks guys.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:28 AM Dawid Weiss <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wrt SNAPSHOT, I think we just need to be patient until Lucene releases
> 9.0.0, then we can depend on that instead, and choose our own timing for
> upgrading.
> > >
> > > You can pin the dependency to a particular snapshot revision... the
> > > problem is those revisions don't stay in snapshot repositories forever
> > > and once they're removed
> > > you wouldn't be able to download/ resolve them.
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > 15. apr. 2021 kl. 13:59 skrev Jason Gerlowski <[email protected]>:
> > > >
> > > > FYI, Mike Drob filed a separate issue for this yesterday (SOLR-15339).
> > > > His ticket doesn't have a PR though so maybe that one should be closed
> > > > as a duplicate?
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure this has been discussed previously and I just missed it - but
> > > > is there a way for us to lock the Solr build on a particular Lucene
> > > > 9.0.0-SNAPSHOT build instead of continually pulling in the latest?
> > > > That'd allow us to handle these API breaks in batches at our
> > > > convenience, instead of having it happen as a "surprise" that we can't
> > > > really control.  Or did we decide against that approach for some
> > > > reason?
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Jason
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 7:23 AM Jan Høydahl <janhoy-
> [email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Due to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9387 being
> committed, removing some methods in Lucene.
> > > >
> > > > Issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15341 to track this.
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 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]
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]

Reply via email to