Yep, that is a more precise description :)

Is it too early to deprecate V1 APIs in 8.11? There has been some great effort 
to get the v2 APIs up to date lately.
Perhaps for 9.0 it is enough to use V2 in all tutorials and ref-guide, and also 
Admin UI. And then deprecate v1 in 9.x and remove in 10.0

Jan

> 22. okt. 2021 kl. 04:01 skrev David Smiley <[email protected]>:
> 
> Thanks for the reminder; I'll get to some of these slowly after the 8.11 
> feature-freeze.
> 
> Note that in SOLR-15223, the point is not "HTTP1 deprecation", it's 
> deprecating one of our two HTTP clients.  The one we are keeping (Jetty 
> client) can talk HTTP1 (and it will if it talks to older Solr servers) -- 
> that isn't deprecated.
> 
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley 
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley>
> 
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 9:19 AM Jan Høydahl <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The Lucene 9.0 release is starting to materialize with a clearn timeline for 
> v8.11 as the last 8.x and then 9.0 immediately after.
> 
> We should start preparing for Solr 9.0 by updating the list of real blockers 
> and decide which of those require commits in 8.x (deprecations, preparation 
> for upgrade compat).
> 
> Here's the current blocker list for Solr: 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20SOLR%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%22main%20(9.0)%22%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
>  
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20SOLR%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%22main%20(9.0)%22%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC>
> 
> <Skjermbilde 2021-10-21 kl. 15.16.06.png>
> 
> Please review these. I think several can be closed as unrealistic, and 
> probably new ones can be added. I have started looking at HTTP1 deprecation 
> in SOLR-15223.
> 
> 
> Jan

Reply via email to