Jason, what do you mean by "publishing" the clients? I suppose you don't mean pip and npm, but including them in the binary tarball for users to consume? Or can we perhaps keep them "internal" only for a few releases with no docs and no guarantees, only dog-fooding?
Jan > 6. des. 2023 kl. 15:38 skrev Jason Gerlowski <gerlowsk...@gmail.com>: > > I'd love to see a 9.5 go out sometime in January to get our new Python and > Javascript clients in front of users. I'm willing to RM the release, or > share duties with you if you're interested David? Publishing the new > clients will require some changes to the release process, and I'd hate to > saddle someone else with ironing out whatever hiccups are likely to crop up. > > What do you guys think about doing 9.5 on a January-ish timeframe? > > That said, if someone else wants a 9.4.1 I don't want to get in the way of > that either. Jan's right that there'd still be value in a 9.4.1 even with > a 9.5. I imagine the driving factor would be whether there's a willing RM > for 9.4.1 > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 5:42 AM Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> wrote: > >> The benefit of doing 9.4.1 now is that it won't have that unknown >> regression that may be lurking in branch_9x now, so it's a much easier >> upgrade path for 9.4.0 users. >> However, I feel a 9.5 should follow quickly after. There is always room >> for a 9.6, 9.7 etc if someone wants to promote newer features, we don't >> need to wait for a certain number of new features to release, in my mind it >> is enought that we have one very interesting feature, or that >2 months has >> passed. >> >> I can help backport dependency upgrades. >> >> Jan >> >>> 6. des. 2023 kl. 05:50 skrev David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> Ideally I would have done a 9.4.1 earlier for that one issue... but I >>> didn't and kept feeling more and more guilty... so here we are. But >> really >>> I shouldn't feel too guilty; open-source is volunteering; doing a patch >>> release shouldn't be a required punishment for an unfortunate bug. It >>> wasn't even a feature I was using in my day-to-day; I was just helping >>> someone fix their problem. >>> >>> BTW a new Lucene release is close so we might to wait a bit on Solr 9.5, >> so >>> maybe we do this 9.4.1. That Lucene release also touches the index >> format >>> BTW. >>> >>> ~ David >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 8:50 PM Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org.invalid >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/5/23 16:28, David Smiley wrote: >>>>> I didn't know doing 9.5 was an option. If it still is, I would prefer >> to >>>>> do 9.5. What do people think? >>>> >>>> The 9.5.0 section of CHANGES.txt in main is not as big as that for >>>> 9.4.0, but it's not small either. >>>> >>>> I do not know whether any of those changes are something that the author >>>> thinks needs to bake for a little while longer. >>>> >>>> I run a branch_9x snapshot on my little tiny Solr install that gets its >>>> index from dovecot, and I update it frequently. It hasn't given me any >>>> trouble. >>>> >>>> I say go for it. Someday I will do a release myself. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Shawn >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org >>>> >>>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org
