subject:"Lucene\/Solr 5.5.1"

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-05-05 Thread Michael McCandless

Good idea ;)

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Joel Bernstein <joels...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 3 bugs fixes in Lucene! We should preface this with Lucene is riddled with
> bugs!
>
> Joel Bernstein
> http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Michael McCandless <
> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh sorry I thought there were 0 changes ;)
>>
>> Mike McCandless
>>
>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike, there were 3 bug fixes as per the change log. Also, no fixes != no
>>> bugs :).
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Michael McCandless <
>>> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think there were no Lucene changes in this release vs 5.5.0?
>>>>
>>>> So maybe the release notes should simply say:
>>>>
>>>>   Lucene is perfect and has no bugs.
>>>>
>>>> Mike McCandless
>>>>
>>>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here is a draft of the release notes. Feel free to edit and fix
>>>>> something that I missed,
>>>>>
>>>>> Lucene: https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseNote551
>>>>> Solr: https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote551
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 SUCCESS! [0:57:52.080980]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le mar. 3 mai 2016 à 19:36, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> a
>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FYI, we generally don't consider weekends for the 72 hour window so
>>>>>>> we'd be waiting until Wednesday to close this one out.
>>>>>>> Thought I'd let everyone who's waiting know about this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Anshum Gupta <
>>>>>>> ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 5.5.1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Artifacts:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Smoke tester:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's my +1:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SUCCESS! [0:26:44.452268]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>
>>
>>
>

[RESULT] Lucene/Solr 5.5.1 RC1 Release vote

2016-05-05 Thread Anshum Gupta

The release vote for Lucene/Solr 5.5.1 RC1 has passed. I will work on
publishing it tomorrow.

Thanks to everyone who voted and helped with the release process!

-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-05-04 Thread Joel Bernstein

3 bugs fixes in Lucene! We should preface this with Lucene is riddled with
bugs!

Joel Bernstein
http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:

> Oh sorry I thought there were 0 changes ;)
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Mike, there were 3 bug fixes as per the change log. Also, no fixes != no
>> bugs :).
>>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Michael McCandless <
>> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think there were no Lucene changes in this release vs 5.5.0?
>>>
>>> So maybe the release notes should simply say:
>>>
>>>   Lucene is perfect and has no bugs.
>>>
>>> Mike McCandless
>>>
>>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is a draft of the release notes. Feel free to edit and fix
>>>> something that I missed,
>>>>
>>>> Lucene: https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseNote551
>>>> Solr: https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote551
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 SUCCESS! [0:57:52.080980]
>>>>>
>>>>> Le mar. 3 mai 2016 à 19:36, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> a
>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI, we generally don't consider weekends for the 72 hour window so
>>>>>> we'd be waiting until Wednesday to close this one out.
>>>>>> Thought I'd let everyone who's waiting know about this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 5.5.1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Artifacts:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Smoke tester:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's my +1:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SUCCESS! [0:26:44.452268]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta
>>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-05-04 Thread Michael McCandless

Oh sorry I thought there were 0 changes ;)

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote:

> Mike, there were 3 bug fixes as per the change log. Also, no fixes != no
> bugs :).
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Michael McCandless <
> luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
>> I think there were no Lucene changes in this release vs 5.5.0?
>>
>> So maybe the release notes should simply say:
>>
>>   Lucene is perfect and has no bugs.
>>
>> Mike McCandless
>>
>> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a draft of the release notes. Feel free to edit and fix
>>> something that I missed,
>>>
>>> Lucene: https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseNote551
>>> Solr: https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote551
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 SUCCESS! [0:57:52.080980]
>>>>
>>>> Le mar. 3 mai 2016 à 19:36, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> FYI, we generally don't consider weekends for the 72 hour window so
>>>>> we'd be waiting until Wednesday to close this one out.
>>>>> Thought I'd let everyone who's waiting know about this.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 5.5.1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Artifacts:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Smoke tester:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's my +1:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SUCCESS! [0:26:44.452268]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-05-04 Thread Anshum Gupta

Mike, there were 3 bug fixes as per the change log. Also, no fixes != no
bugs :).

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:

> I think there were no Lucene changes in this release vs 5.5.0?
>
> So maybe the release notes should simply say:
>
>   Lucene is perfect and has no bugs.
>
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Here is a draft of the release notes. Feel free to edit and fix something
>> that I missed,
>>
>> Lucene: https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseNote551
>> Solr: https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote551
>>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 SUCCESS! [0:57:52.080980]
>>>
>>> Le mar. 3 mai 2016 à 19:36, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>> FYI, we generally don't consider weekends for the 72 hour window so
>>>> we'd be waiting until Wednesday to close this one out.
>>>> Thought I'd let everyone who's waiting know about this.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 5.5.1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Artifacts:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>>>>>
>>>>> Smoke tester:
>>>>>
>>>>>   python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's my +1:
>>>>>
>>>>> SUCCESS! [0:26:44.452268]
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta
>>
>
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-05-04 Thread Walter Underwood

> On May 4, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Michael McCandless  
> wrote:
> 
>   Lucene is perfect and has no bugs.

The correct form of that statement is “the Lucene test suite is inadequate.” :-)

wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/  (my blog)

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-05-04 Thread Michael McCandless

I think there were no Lucene changes in this release vs 5.5.0?

So maybe the release notes should simply say:

  Lucene is perfect and has no bugs.

Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote:

> Here is a draft of the release notes. Feel free to edit and fix something
> that I missed,
>
> Lucene: https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseNote551
> Solr: https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote551
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 SUCCESS! [0:57:52.080980]
>>
>> Le mar. 3 mai 2016 à 19:36, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> FYI, we generally don't consider weekends for the 72 hour window so we'd
>>> be waiting until Wednesday to close this one out.
>>> Thought I'd let everyone who's waiting know about this.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 5.5.1.
>>>>
>>>> Artifacts:
>>>>
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>>>>
>>>> Smoke tester:
>>>>
>>>>   python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's my +1:
>>>>
>>>> SUCCESS! [0:26:44.452268]
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-05-04 Thread Anshum Gupta

Here is a draft of the release notes. Feel free to edit and fix something
that I missed,

Lucene: https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseNote551
Solr: https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote551

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 SUCCESS! [0:57:52.080980]
>
> Le mar. 3 mai 2016 à 19:36, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> a
> écrit :
>
>> FYI, we generally don't consider weekends for the 72 hour window so we'd
>> be waiting until Wednesday to close this one out.
>> Thought I'd let everyone who's waiting know about this.
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 5.5.1.
>>>
>>> Artifacts:
>>>
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>>>
>>> Smoke tester:
>>>
>>>   python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's my +1:
>>>
>>> SUCCESS! [0:26:44.452268]
>>>
>>> --
>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta
>>
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-05-04 Thread Adrien Grand

+1 SUCCESS! [0:57:52.080980]

Le mar. 3 mai 2016 à 19:36, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> a écrit :

> FYI, we generally don't consider weekends for the 72 hour window so we'd
> be waiting until Wednesday to close this one out.
> Thought I'd let everyone who's waiting know about this.
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 5.5.1.
>>
>> Artifacts:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>>
>> Smoke tester:
>>
>>   python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>>
>>
>> Here's my +1:
>>
>> SUCCESS! [0:26:44.452268]
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-05-03 Thread Anshum Gupta

FYI, we generally don't consider weekends for the 72 hour window so we'd be
waiting until Wednesday to close this one out.
Thought I'd let everyone who's waiting know about this.

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net>
wrote:

> Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 5.5.1.
>
> Artifacts:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>
> Smoke tester:
>
>   python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>
>
> Here's my +1:
>
> SUCCESS! [0:26:44.452268]
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>

-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-05-02 Thread Noble Paul

I couldn't reproduce it with repeated runs. This is a mock test and the
failure says , "no SolrAuth header present, which will not happen in a real
test. it has to be something with the mock itself. This should not hold up
the release

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Noble Paul <noble.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I shall dig into this
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> -Yonik
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net>
>> wrote:
>> > Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 5.5.1.
>> >
>> > Artifacts:
>> >
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>> >
>> > Smoke tester:
>> >
>> >   python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>> >
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>> >
>> >
>> > Here's my +1:
>> >
>> > SUCCESS! [0:26:44.452268]
>> >
>> > --
>> > Anshum Gupta
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -
> Noble Paul
>



-- 
-
Noble Paul

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-05-02 Thread Noble Paul

I shall dig into this

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> -Yonik
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net>
> wrote:
> > Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 5.5.1.
> >
> > Artifacts:
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
> >
> > Smoke tester:
> >
> >   python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
> >
> >
> > Here's my +1:
> >
> > SUCCESS! [0:26:44.452268]
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 
-
Noble Paul

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-05-02 Thread Yonik Seeley

+1

-Yonik


On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 5.5.1.
>
> Artifacts:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>
> Smoke tester:
>
>   python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>
>
> Here's my +1:
>
> SUCCESS! [0:26:44.452268]
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-05-02 Thread Steve Rowe

+1

Docs, changes and javadocs look good.

The smoke tester passed for me (with java8): SUCCESS! [0:45:46.037606]

--
Steve
www.lucidworks.com

> On Apr 30, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> 
> Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 5.5.1.
> 
> Artifacts:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
> 
> Smoke tester:
> 
>   python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py 
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
> 
> 
> Here's my +1:
> 
> SUCCESS! [0:26:44.452268]
> 
> -- 
> Anshum Gupta


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-05-02 Thread Timothy Potter

+1 SUCCESS! [0:51:00.367685]

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 5.5.1.
>
> Artifacts:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>
> Smoke tester:
>
>   python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>
>
> Here's my +1:
>
> SUCCESS! [0:26:44.452268]
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-05-02 Thread Anshum Gupta

I can't reproduce that failure even with the seed. I don't think it's a
blocker and we should be good to go.

@Noble: Considering you have a better grip on this test, can you confirm ?

I think we should track this in a JIRA. Perhaps just an epic with sub-tasks
about failing tests is what we need right now to get a grip on the tests
situation.

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote:

> When I ran the smoke tester for the first time, I encountered this test
> failure:
>
> [junit4] Suite: org.apache.solr.security.TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin
> [junit4] 2> Creating dataDir:
> /tmp/smoke_lucene_5.5.1_c08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58_3/unpack/solr-5.5.1/solr/build/solr-core/test/J3/temp/solr.security.TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin_4643E7DFA3C28AD5-001/init-core-data-001
> [junit4] 2> 48028 INFO
> (SUITE-TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin-seed#[4643E7DFA3C28AD5]-worker) [ ]
> o.a.s.SolrTestCaseJ4 Randomized ssl (true) and clientAuth (false)
> [junit4] 2> 48031 INFO
> (TEST-TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin.test-seed#[4643E7DFA3C28AD5]) [ ]
> o.a.s.SolrTestCaseJ4 ###Starting test
> [junit4] 2> 48323 ERROR
> (TEST-TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin.test-seed#[4643E7DFA3C28AD5]) [ ]
> o.a.s.s.PKIAuthenticationPlugin No SolrAuth header present
> [junit4] 2> 48377 ERROR
> (TEST-TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin.test-seed#[4643E7DFA3C28AD5]) [ ]
> o.a.s.s.PKIAuthenticationPlugin Invalid key
> [junit4] 2> 48377 INFO
> (TEST-TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin.test-seed#[4643E7DFA3C28AD5]) [ ]
> o.a.s.SolrTestCaseJ4 ###Ending test
> [junit4] 2> NOTE: reproduce with: ant test
> -Dtestcase=TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin -Dtests.method=test
> -Dtests.seed=4643E7DFA3C28AD5 -Dtests.locale=ja-JP
> -Dtests.timezone=Australia/Lindeman -Dtests.asserts=true
> -Dtests.file.encoding=US-ASCII
> [junit4] ERROR 0.35s J3 | TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin.test <<<
> [junit4] > Throwable #1: java.lang.NullPointerException
> [junit4] > at
> __randomizedtesting.SeedInfo.seed([4643E7DFA3C28AD5:CE17D8050D3EE72D]:0)
> [junit4] > at
> org.apache.solr.security.TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin.test(TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin.java:156)
> [junit4] > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
> [junit4] 2> 48379 INFO
> (SUITE-TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin-seed#[4643E7DFA3C28AD5]-worker) [ ]
> o.a.s.SolrTestCaseJ4 ###deleteCore
> [junit4] 2> NOTE: leaving temporary files on disk at:
> /tmp/smoke_lucene_5.5.1_c08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58_3/unpack/solr-5.5.1/solr/build/solr-core/test/J3/temp/solr.security.TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin_4643E7DFA3C28AD5-001
> [junit4] 2> NOTE: test params are: codec=Asserting(Lucene54): {},
> docValues:{}, sim=DefaultSimilarity, locale=ja-JP,
> timezone=Australia/Lindeman
> [junit4] 2> NOTE: Linux 4.2.0-30-generic amd64/Oracle Corporation 1.7.0_80
> (64-bit)/cpus=8,threads=1,free=161219560,total=432537600
> [junit4] 2> NOTE: All tests run in this JVM: [TestAtomicUpdateErrorCases,
> TestDefaultStatsCache, TestFiltering, PluginInfoTest,
> HdfsWriteToMultipleCollectionsTest, DistributedFacetPivotSmallAdvancedTest,
> ConnectionManagerTest, TestJoin, ShardRoutingTest,
> WrapperMergePolicyFactoryTest, IndexSchemaRuntimeFieldTest,
> TestClassNameShortening, SimpleCollectionCreateDeleteTest,
> TestManagedResource, BigEndianAscendingWordDeserializerTest,
> HdfsRestartWhileUpdatingTest, TestSolrDeletionPolicy1, TestConfigReload,
> TestSolrJ, TestIndexingPerformance, TestInitQParser,
> AlternateDirectoryTest, TestConfigOverlay, TestCSVResponseWriter,
> SpatialRPTFieldTypeTest, SolrIndexSplitterTest, DistributedVersionInfoTest,
> TestSmileRequest, TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin]
>
> Second time it passed. I didn't have time to dig into the failure, so I
> can't tell if it should hold off the release. What do you think?
>
> Shai
>
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:26 AM Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 5.5.1.
>>
>> Artifacts:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>>
>> Smoke tester:
>>
>>   python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>>
>>
>> Here's my +1:
>>
>> SUCCESS! [0:26:44.452268]
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta
>>
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-05-02 Thread Shai Erera

When I ran the smoke tester for the first time, I encountered this test
failure:

[junit4] Suite: org.apache.solr.security.TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin
[junit4] 2> Creating dataDir:
/tmp/smoke_lucene_5.5.1_c08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58_3/unpack/solr-5.5.1/solr/build/solr-core/test/J3/temp/solr.security.TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin_4643E7DFA3C28AD5-001/init-core-data-001
[junit4] 2> 48028 INFO
(SUITE-TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin-seed#[4643E7DFA3C28AD5]-worker) [ ]
o.a.s.SolrTestCaseJ4 Randomized ssl (true) and clientAuth (false)
[junit4] 2> 48031 INFO
(TEST-TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin.test-seed#[4643E7DFA3C28AD5]) [ ]
o.a.s.SolrTestCaseJ4 ###Starting test
[junit4] 2> 48323 ERROR
(TEST-TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin.test-seed#[4643E7DFA3C28AD5]) [ ]
o.a.s.s.PKIAuthenticationPlugin No SolrAuth header present
[junit4] 2> 48377 ERROR
(TEST-TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin.test-seed#[4643E7DFA3C28AD5]) [ ]
o.a.s.s.PKIAuthenticationPlugin Invalid key
[junit4] 2> 48377 INFO
(TEST-TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin.test-seed#[4643E7DFA3C28AD5]) [ ]
o.a.s.SolrTestCaseJ4 ###Ending test
[junit4] 2> NOTE: reproduce with: ant test
-Dtestcase=TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin -Dtests.method=test
-Dtests.seed=4643E7DFA3C28AD5 -Dtests.locale=ja-JP
-Dtests.timezone=Australia/Lindeman -Dtests.asserts=true
-Dtests.file.encoding=US-ASCII
[junit4] ERROR 0.35s J3 | TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin.test <<<
[junit4] > Throwable #1: java.lang.NullPointerException
[junit4] > at
__randomizedtesting.SeedInfo.seed([4643E7DFA3C28AD5:CE17D8050D3EE72D]:0)
[junit4] > at
org.apache.solr.security.TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin.test(TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin.java:156)
[junit4] > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
[junit4] 2> 48379 INFO
(SUITE-TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin-seed#[4643E7DFA3C28AD5]-worker) [ ]
o.a.s.SolrTestCaseJ4 ###deleteCore
[junit4] 2> NOTE: leaving temporary files on disk at:
/tmp/smoke_lucene_5.5.1_c08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58_3/unpack/solr-5.5.1/solr/build/solr-core/test/J3/temp/solr.security.TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin_4643E7DFA3C28AD5-001
[junit4] 2> NOTE: test params are: codec=Asserting(Lucene54): {},
docValues:{}, sim=DefaultSimilarity, locale=ja-JP,
timezone=Australia/Lindeman
[junit4] 2> NOTE: Linux 4.2.0-30-generic amd64/Oracle Corporation 1.7.0_80
(64-bit)/cpus=8,threads=1,free=161219560,total=432537600
[junit4] 2> NOTE: All tests run in this JVM: [TestAtomicUpdateErrorCases,
TestDefaultStatsCache, TestFiltering, PluginInfoTest,
HdfsWriteToMultipleCollectionsTest, DistributedFacetPivotSmallAdvancedTest,
ConnectionManagerTest, TestJoin, ShardRoutingTest,
WrapperMergePolicyFactoryTest, IndexSchemaRuntimeFieldTest,
TestClassNameShortening, SimpleCollectionCreateDeleteTest,
TestManagedResource, BigEndianAscendingWordDeserializerTest,
HdfsRestartWhileUpdatingTest, TestSolrDeletionPolicy1, TestConfigReload,
TestSolrJ, TestIndexingPerformance, TestInitQParser,
AlternateDirectoryTest, TestConfigOverlay, TestCSVResponseWriter,
SpatialRPTFieldTypeTest, SolrIndexSplitterTest, DistributedVersionInfoTest,
TestSmileRequest, TestPKIAuthenticationPlugin]

Second time it passed. I didn't have time to dig into the failure, so I
can't tell if it should hold off the release. What do you think?

Shai

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:26 AM Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote:

> Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 5.5.1.
>
> Artifacts:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>
> Smoke tester:
>
>   python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58
>
>
> Here's my +1:
>
> SUCCESS! [0:26:44.452268]
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>

[VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-30 Thread Anshum Gupta

Please vote for the RC1 release candidate for Lucene/Solr 5.5.1.

Artifacts:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58

Smoke tester:

  python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-5.5.1-RC1-revc08f17bca0d9cbf516874d13d221ab100e5b7d58


Here's my +1:

SUCCESS! [0:26:44.452268]

-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-29 Thread Anshum Gupta

I tried to add the back compat index for 5.5.0 by running the script on
branch_5x, but it errors out when running the test with : "Extra
back-compat test files: 5.5.0-cfs". I'm confused here in terms of what the
instructions say and what's supposed to be done.

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Anshum Gupta 
wrote:

> Seems like 5.5.0 back compat index was never added. Can someone confirm
> that?
> I have the RC but the smoke test failed when I ran it locally. Here's the
> error:
>
> Verify...
>   confirm all releases have coverage in TestBackwardsCompatibility
> find all past Lucene releases...
> run TestBackwardsCompatibility..
>   Backcompat testing not required for release 6.0.0 because it's not
> less than 5.5.1
> Releases that don't seem to be tested:
>   5.5.0
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1443, in 
> main()
>   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1387, in main
> smokeTest(c.java, c.url, c.revision, c.version, c.tmp_dir,
> c.is_signed, ' '.join(c.test_args))
>   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1425, in smokeTest
> unpackAndVerify(java, 'lucene', tmpDir, 'lucene-%s-src.tgz' % version,
> gitRevision, version, testArgs, baseURL)
>   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 589, in
> unpackAndVerify
> verifyUnpacked(java, project, artifact, unpackPath, gitRevision,
> version, testArgs, tmpDir, baseURL)
>   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 769, in verifyUnpacked
> confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat(version, unpackPath)
>   File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1380, in
> confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat
> raise RuntimeError('some releases are not tested by
> TestBackwardsCompatibility?')
> RuntimeError: some releases are not tested by TestBackwardsCompatibility?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>
>> Something seems to be going on with TestManagedSchemaAPI as it's been
>> consistently failing.
>> I woke up with a fever today so I'll try and debug it some time later if
>> I'm unable to get an RC built, but if I do get the RC, I'll get it out to
>> vote and in parallel see if it's something that needs fixing unless someone
>> else beats me to it.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That makes sense considering there are those checks for ignoring 1
>>> missing version.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
>>>
 Anshum,

 TL;DR: When there is only one release in flight, I think it’s okay to
 run addVersion.py on all branches at the start of the release process for
 all types of releases.

 When we chatted last night I said backcompat index testing was a
 problem on non-release branches in the interval between adding a
 not-yet-released version to o.a.l.util.Version and when a backcompat index
 is committed on the branch.  I was wrong.

 Here are the places where there are back-compat coverage tests:

 1. smokeTestRelease.py's confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat()
 will succeed until release artifacts have been published - see
 getAllLuceneReleases() for where they are scraped off the lucene release
 list page on archive.apache.org.  So back-compat indexes should be
 generated and committed as soon as possible after publishing artifacts.

 2. backward-codec’s TestBackwardsCompatibility.testAllVersionsTested()
 will still succeed if a single version is not tested.  Here’s the code:

   // we could be missing up to 1 file, which may be due to a release
 that is in progress
   if (missingFiles.size() <= 1 && extraFiles.isEmpty()) {

 The above test could be improved by checking for the presence of
 published release artifacts for each release like smokeTestRelease.py does,
 and then not requiring the backcompat index be present for those that are
 not yet published; this would allow for multiple in-flight releases.

 Steve

 > On Apr 28, 2016, at 10:44 PM, Anshum Gupta 
 wrote:
 >
 > I've updated the "Update Version Numbers in the Source Code" section
 on the ReleaseToDo page. It'd be good to have some one else also take a
 look at it.
 >
 > Here is what I've changed (only bug fix release):
 > * Only bump up the version on the release branch using addVersion.py
 > * Don't bump it up on the non-release versions in case of bug fix
 release.
 > * As part of the post-release process, use the commit hash from the
 release branch version bump up, to increment the version on the non-release
 branches.
 >
 > I thought we could do this for non bug-fix releases too, but I was
 wrong. Minor versions need to be bumped up on stable branches

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-29 Thread Anshum Gupta

Seems like 5.5.0 back compat index was never added. Can someone confirm
that?
I have the RC but the smoke test failed when I ran it locally. Here's the
error:

Verify...
  confirm all releases have coverage in TestBackwardsCompatibility
find all past Lucene releases...
run TestBackwardsCompatibility..
  Backcompat testing not required for release 6.0.0 because it's not
less than 5.5.1
Releases that don't seem to be tested:
  5.5.0
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1443, in 
main()
  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1387, in main
smokeTest(c.java, c.url, c.revision, c.version, c.tmp_dir, c.is_signed,
' '.join(c.test_args))
  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1425, in smokeTest
unpackAndVerify(java, 'lucene', tmpDir, 'lucene-%s-src.tgz' % version,
gitRevision, version, testArgs, baseURL)
  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 589, in unpackAndVerify
verifyUnpacked(java, project, artifact, unpackPath, gitRevision,
version, testArgs, tmpDir, baseURL)
  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 769, in verifyUnpacked
confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat(version, unpackPath)
  File "dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1380, in
confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat
raise RuntimeError('some releases are not tested by
TestBackwardsCompatibility?')
RuntimeError: some releases are not tested by TestBackwardsCompatibility?

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Anshum Gupta 
wrote:

> Something seems to be going on with TestManagedSchemaAPI as it's been
> consistently failing.
> I woke up with a fever today so I'll try and debug it some time later if
> I'm unable to get an RC built, but if I do get the RC, I'll get it out to
> vote and in parallel see if it's something that needs fixing unless someone
> else beats me to it.
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>
>> That makes sense considering there are those checks for ignoring 1
>> missing version.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
>>
>>> Anshum,
>>>
>>> TL;DR: When there is only one release in flight, I think it’s okay to
>>> run addVersion.py on all branches at the start of the release process for
>>> all types of releases.
>>>
>>> When we chatted last night I said backcompat index testing was a problem
>>> on non-release branches in the interval between adding a not-yet-released
>>> version to o.a.l.util.Version and when a backcompat index is committed on
>>> the branch.  I was wrong.
>>>
>>> Here are the places where there are back-compat coverage tests:
>>>
>>> 1. smokeTestRelease.py's confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat() will
>>> succeed until release artifacts have been published - see
>>> getAllLuceneReleases() for where they are scraped off the lucene release
>>> list page on archive.apache.org.  So back-compat indexes should be
>>> generated and committed as soon as possible after publishing artifacts.
>>>
>>> 2. backward-codec’s TestBackwardsCompatibility.testAllVersionsTested()
>>> will still succeed if a single version is not tested.  Here’s the code:
>>>
>>>   // we could be missing up to 1 file, which may be due to a release
>>> that is in progress
>>>   if (missingFiles.size() <= 1 && extraFiles.isEmpty()) {
>>>
>>> The above test could be improved by checking for the presence of
>>> published release artifacts for each release like smokeTestRelease.py does,
>>> and then not requiring the backcompat index be present for those that are
>>> not yet published; this would allow for multiple in-flight releases.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> > On Apr 28, 2016, at 10:44 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I've updated the "Update Version Numbers in the Source Code" section
>>> on the ReleaseToDo page. It'd be good to have some one else also take a
>>> look at it.
>>> >
>>> > Here is what I've changed (only bug fix release):
>>> > * Only bump up the version on the release branch using addVersion.py
>>> > * Don't bump it up on the non-release versions in case of bug fix
>>> release.
>>> > * As part of the post-release process, use the commit hash from the
>>> release branch version bump up, to increment the version on the non-release
>>> branches.
>>> >
>>> > I thought we could do this for non bug-fix releases too, but I was
>>> wrong. Minor versions need to be bumped up on stable branches (and trunk)
>>> because during the release process for say version 6.1, there might be
>>> commits for 6.2 and we'd need stable branches and master, both to support
>>> those commits.
>>> > We could debate about not needing something like this for major
>>> versions but then I don't think it's worth the pain of different release
>>> processes for each branch but I'm not stuck up with this.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-29 Thread Anshum Gupta

Something seems to be going on with TestManagedSchemaAPI as it's been
consistently failing.
I woke up with a fever today so I'll try and debug it some time later if
I'm unable to get an RC built, but if I do get the RC, I'll get it out to
vote and in parallel see if it's something that needs fixing unless someone
else beats me to it.

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Anshum Gupta 
wrote:

> That makes sense considering there are those checks for ignoring 1 missing
> version.
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
>
>> Anshum,
>>
>> TL;DR: When there is only one release in flight, I think it’s okay to run
>> addVersion.py on all branches at the start of the release process for all
>> types of releases.
>>
>> When we chatted last night I said backcompat index testing was a problem
>> on non-release branches in the interval between adding a not-yet-released
>> version to o.a.l.util.Version and when a backcompat index is committed on
>> the branch.  I was wrong.
>>
>> Here are the places where there are back-compat coverage tests:
>>
>> 1. smokeTestRelease.py's confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat() will
>> succeed until release artifacts have been published - see
>> getAllLuceneReleases() for where they are scraped off the lucene release
>> list page on archive.apache.org.  So back-compat indexes should be
>> generated and committed as soon as possible after publishing artifacts.
>>
>> 2. backward-codec’s TestBackwardsCompatibility.testAllVersionsTested()
>> will still succeed if a single version is not tested.  Here’s the code:
>>
>>   // we could be missing up to 1 file, which may be due to a release that
>> is in progress
>>   if (missingFiles.size() <= 1 && extraFiles.isEmpty()) {
>>
>> The above test could be improved by checking for the presence of
>> published release artifacts for each release like smokeTestRelease.py does,
>> and then not requiring the backcompat index be present for those that are
>> not yet published; this would allow for multiple in-flight releases.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> > On Apr 28, 2016, at 10:44 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I've updated the "Update Version Numbers in the Source Code" section on
>> the ReleaseToDo page. It'd be good to have some one else also take a look
>> at it.
>> >
>> > Here is what I've changed (only bug fix release):
>> > * Only bump up the version on the release branch using addVersion.py
>> > * Don't bump it up on the non-release versions in case of bug fix
>> release.
>> > * As part of the post-release process, use the commit hash from the
>> release branch version bump up, to increment the version on the non-release
>> branches.
>> >
>> > I thought we could do this for non bug-fix releases too, but I was
>> wrong. Minor versions need to be bumped up on stable branches (and trunk)
>> because during the release process for say version 6.1, there might be
>> commits for 6.2 and we'd need stable branches and master, both to support
>> those commits.
>> > We could debate about not needing something like this for major
>> versions but then I don't think it's worth the pain of different release
>> processes for each branch but I'm not stuck up with this.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> > That's fixed (about to commit the fix from LUCENE-7265) thought.
>> >
>> > While discussing the release process, Steve mentioned that we should
>> document the failing back-compat index test on the non-release branches due
>> to the missing index for the unreleased version.
>> > On discussing further, he suggested that we instead move the process of
>> adding the version to non-release branches as a post-release task. This
>> way, we wouldn't have failing tests until the release goes through and the
>> back-compat indexes are checked in.
>> >
>> > We still would have failing tests for the release branch but there's no
>> way around that.
>> >
>> > So, I'll change the documentation to move those steps as post-release
>> tasks.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> > Seems like LUCENE-6938 removed the merge logic that used the change id.
>> Now the merge doesn't happen, and there's no logic that replaces it.
>> >
>> > I certainly can do with some help on this one.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> > Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something here again. While
>> trying to update the version on 5x, after having done that on 5.5, using
>> the addVersion.py script and following the instructions, the command
>> consistently fails. Here's what I've been trying to do:
>> >
>> > python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/addVersion.py --changeid 49ba147 5.5.1
>> >
>> > Seems like addVersion.py is broken for minor version releases so I'd
>> need some help with someone who has a better understanding of python than

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-29 Thread Anshum Gupta

That makes sense considering there are those checks for ignoring 1 missing
version.

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:

> Anshum,
>
> TL;DR: When there is only one release in flight, I think it’s okay to run
> addVersion.py on all branches at the start of the release process for all
> types of releases.
>
> When we chatted last night I said backcompat index testing was a problem
> on non-release branches in the interval between adding a not-yet-released
> version to o.a.l.util.Version and when a backcompat index is committed on
> the branch.  I was wrong.
>
> Here are the places where there are back-compat coverage tests:
>
> 1. smokeTestRelease.py's confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat() will
> succeed until release artifacts have been published - see
> getAllLuceneReleases() for where they are scraped off the lucene release
> list page on archive.apache.org.  So back-compat indexes should be
> generated and committed as soon as possible after publishing artifacts.
>
> 2. backward-codec’s TestBackwardsCompatibility.testAllVersionsTested()
> will still succeed if a single version is not tested.  Here’s the code:
>
>   // we could be missing up to 1 file, which may be due to a release that
> is in progress
>   if (missingFiles.size() <= 1 && extraFiles.isEmpty()) {
>
> The above test could be improved by checking for the presence of published
> release artifacts for each release like smokeTestRelease.py does, and then
> not requiring the backcompat index be present for those that are not yet
> published; this would allow for multiple in-flight releases.
>
> Steve
>
> > On Apr 28, 2016, at 10:44 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> >
> > I've updated the "Update Version Numbers in the Source Code" section on
> the ReleaseToDo page. It'd be good to have some one else also take a look
> at it.
> >
> > Here is what I've changed (only bug fix release):
> > * Only bump up the version on the release branch using addVersion.py
> > * Don't bump it up on the non-release versions in case of bug fix
> release.
> > * As part of the post-release process, use the commit hash from the
> release branch version bump up, to increment the version on the non-release
> branches.
> >
> > I thought we could do this for non bug-fix releases too, but I was
> wrong. Minor versions need to be bumped up on stable branches (and trunk)
> because during the release process for say version 6.1, there might be
> commits for 6.2 and we'd need stable branches and master, both to support
> those commits.
> > We could debate about not needing something like this for major versions
> but then I don't think it's worth the pain of different release processes
> for each branch but I'm not stuck up with this.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > That's fixed (about to commit the fix from LUCENE-7265) thought.
> >
> > While discussing the release process, Steve mentioned that we should
> document the failing back-compat index test on the non-release branches due
> to the missing index for the unreleased version.
> > On discussing further, he suggested that we instead move the process of
> adding the version to non-release branches as a post-release task. This
> way, we wouldn't have failing tests until the release goes through and the
> back-compat indexes are checked in.
> >
> > We still would have failing tests for the release branch but there's no
> way around that.
> >
> > So, I'll change the documentation to move those steps as post-release
> tasks.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > Seems like LUCENE-6938 removed the merge logic that used the change id.
> Now the merge doesn't happen, and there's no logic that replaces it.
> >
> > I certainly can do with some help on this one.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something here again. While
> trying to update the version on 5x, after having done that on 5.5, using
> the addVersion.py script and following the instructions, the command
> consistently fails. Here's what I've been trying to do:
> >
> > python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/addVersion.py --changeid 49ba147 5.5.1
> >
> > Seems like addVersion.py is broken for minor version releases so I'd
> need some help with someone who has a better understanding of python than I
> do. I observed that 5.5.1 Version gets added to Version.java but also gets
> marked as deprecated.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > Too much going on! Thanks Yonik.
> > I'll start working on the RC now.
> >
> > NOTE: Please don't back port any more issues right now. In case of
> exceptions, please raise them here.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-29 Thread Anshum Gupta

Hi Upayavira,

I've already started the release process and I'm creating an RC. It
would've been created last night but the tests failed so I'm just creating
it again.
Feel free to commit this to 5.5 so that if we re-spin for whatever reason,
this would get automatically included unless you think this qualifies as a
blocker and we wait/re-spin just for these issues.

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 5:52 AM, Upayavira  wrote:

> I would like to include at least one, possibly two, trivial but
> significant fixes to the Solr Admin UI - SOLR-9032 is one of them, where
> the create alias feature fails without telling you.
>
> I'll try to get this committed by the end of the weekend.
>
> Upayavira
>
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, at 03:44 AM, Anshum Gupta wrote:
>
> I've updated the "Update Version Numbers in the Source Code" section on
> the ReleaseToDo page. It'd be good to have some one else also take a look
> at it.
>
> Here is what I've changed (only bug fix release):
> * Only bump up the version on the release branch using addVersion.py
> * Don't bump it up on the non-release versions in case of bug fix release.
> * As part of the post-release process, use the commit hash from the
> release branch version bump up, to increment the version on the non-release
> branches.
>
> I thought we could do this for non bug-fix releases too, but I was wrong.
> Minor versions need to be bumped up on stable branches (and trunk) because
> during the release process for say version 6.1, there might be commits for
> 6.2 and we'd need stable branches and master, both to support those commits.
> We could debate about not needing something like this for major versions
> but then I don't think it's worth the pain of different release processes
> for each branch but I'm not stuck up with this.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>
> That's fixed (about to commit the fix from LUCENE-7265) thought.
>
> While discussing the release process, Steve mentioned that we should
> document the failing back-compat index test on the non-release branches due
> to the missing index for the unreleased version.
> On discussing further, he suggested that we instead move the process of
> adding the version to non-release branches as a post-release task. This
> way, we wouldn't have failing tests until the release goes through and the
> back-compat indexes are checked in.
>
> We still would have failing tests for the release branch but there's no
> way around that.
>
> So, I'll change the documentation to move those steps as post-release
> tasks.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>
> Seems like LUCENE-6938 removed the merge logic that used the change id.
> Now the merge doesn't happen, and there's no logic that replaces it.
>
> I certainly can do with some help on this one.
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>
> Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something here again. While
> trying to update the version on 5x, after having done that on 5.5, using
> the addVersion.py script and following the instructions, the command
> consistently fails. Here's what I've been trying to do:
>
>
> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/addVersion.py --changeid 49ba147 5.5.1
>
>
> Seems like addVersion.py is broken for minor version releases so I'd need
> some help with someone who has a better understanding of python than I do.
> I observed that 5.5.1 Version gets added to Version.java but also gets
> marked as deprecated.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>
> Too much going on! Thanks Yonik.
> I'll start working on the RC now.
>
> NOTE: Please don't back port any more issues right now. In case of
> exceptions, please raise them here.
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > Thanks. I'm waiting for the last back port of SOLR-8865.
>
> It should be already be there... I closed it yesterday.
>
> -Yonik
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>
>
>



-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-29 Thread Steve Rowe

Anshum,

TL;DR: When there is only one release in flight, I think it’s okay to run 
addVersion.py on all branches at the start of the release process for all types 
of releases.

When we chatted last night I said backcompat index testing was a problem on 
non-release branches in the interval between adding a not-yet-released version 
to o.a.l.util.Version and when a backcompat index is committed on the branch.  
I was wrong.  

Here are the places where there are back-compat coverage tests:

1. smokeTestRelease.py's confirmAllReleasesAreTestedForBackCompat() will 
succeed until release artifacts have been published - see 
getAllLuceneReleases() for where they are scraped off the lucene release list 
page on archive.apache.org.  So back-compat indexes should be generated and 
committed as soon as possible after publishing artifacts.

2. backward-codec’s TestBackwardsCompatibility.testAllVersionsTested() will 
still succeed if a single version is not tested.  Here’s the code:

  // we could be missing up to 1 file, which may be due to a release that is in 
progress
  if (missingFiles.size() <= 1 && extraFiles.isEmpty()) {

The above test could be improved by checking for the presence of published 
release artifacts for each release like smokeTestRelease.py does, and then not 
requiring the backcompat index be present for those that are not yet published; 
this would allow for multiple in-flight releases. 

Steve

> On Apr 28, 2016, at 10:44 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> 
> I've updated the "Update Version Numbers in the Source Code" section on the 
> ReleaseToDo page. It'd be good to have some one else also take a look at it.
> 
> Here is what I've changed (only bug fix release):
> * Only bump up the version on the release branch using addVersion.py
> * Don't bump it up on the non-release versions in case of bug fix release.
> * As part of the post-release process, use the commit hash from the release 
> branch version bump up, to increment the version on the non-release branches.
> 
> I thought we could do this for non bug-fix releases too, but I was wrong. 
> Minor versions need to be bumped up on stable branches (and trunk) because 
> during the release process for say version 6.1, there might be commits for 
> 6.2 and we'd need stable branches and master, both to support those commits.
> We could debate about not needing something like this for major versions but 
> then I don't think it's worth the pain of different release processes for 
> each branch but I'm not stuck up with this.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> That's fixed (about to commit the fix from LUCENE-7265) thought.
> 
> While discussing the release process, Steve mentioned that we should document 
> the failing back-compat index test on the non-release branches due to the 
> missing index for the unreleased version. 
> On discussing further, he suggested that we instead move the process of 
> adding the version to non-release branches as a post-release task. This way, 
> we wouldn't have failing tests until the release goes through and the 
> back-compat indexes are checked in.
> 
> We still would have failing tests for the release branch but there's no way 
> around that.
> 
> So, I'll change the documentation to move those steps as post-release tasks.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> Seems like LUCENE-6938 removed the merge logic that used the change id. Now 
> the merge doesn't happen, and there's no logic that replaces it.
> 
> I certainly can do with some help on this one.
> 
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something here again. While trying 
> to update the version on 5x, after having done that on 5.5, using the 
> addVersion.py script and following the instructions, the command consistently 
> fails. Here's what I've been trying to do:
> 
> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/addVersion.py --changeid 49ba147 5.5.1
> 
> Seems like addVersion.py is broken for minor version releases so I'd need 
> some help with someone who has a better understanding of python than I do. I 
> observed that 5.5.1 Version gets added to Version.java but also gets marked 
> as deprecated.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> Too much going on! Thanks Yonik.
> I'll start working on the RC now.
> 
> NOTE: Please don't back port any more issues right now. In case of 
> exceptions, please raise them here.
> 
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> > Thanks. I'm waiting for the last back port of SOLR-8865.
> 
> It should be already be there... I closed it yesterday.
> -Yonik
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-29 Thread Upayavira

I would like to include at least one, possibly two, trivial but
significant fixes to the Solr Admin UI - SOLR-9032 is one of them, where
the create alias feature fails without telling you.
 
I'll try to get this committed by the end of the weekend.
 
Upayavira
 
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, at 03:44 AM, Anshum Gupta wrote:
> I've updated the "Update Version Numbers in the Source Code" section
> on the ReleaseToDo page. It'd be good to have some one else also take
> a look at it.
>
> Here is what I've changed (only bug fix release):
> * Only bump up the version on the release branch using addVersion.py
> * Don't bump it up on the non-release versions in case of bug fix
>   release.
> * As part of the post-release process, use the commit hash from the
>   release branch version bump up, to increment the version on the non-
>   release branches.
>
> I thought we could do this for non bug-fix releases too, but I was
> wrong. Minor versions need to be bumped up on stable branches (and
> trunk) because during the release process for say version 6.1, there
> might be commits for 6.2 and we'd need stable branches and master,
> both to support those commits.
> We could debate about not needing something like this for major
> versions but then I don't think it's worth the pain of different
> release processes for each branch but I'm not stuck up with this.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Anshum Gupta
>  wrote:
>> That's fixed (about to commit the fix from LUCENE-7265) thought.
>>
>> While discussing the release process, Steve mentioned that we should
>> document the failing back-compat index test on the non-release
>> branches due to the missing index for the unreleased version.
>> On discussing further, he suggested that we instead move the process
>> of adding the version to non-release branches as a post-release task.
>> This way, we wouldn't have failing tests until the release goes
>> through and the back-compat indexes are checked in.
>>
>> We still would have failing tests for the release branch but there's
>> no way around that.
>>
>> So, I'll change the documentation to move those steps as post-
>> release tasks.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Anshum Gupta
>>  wrote:
>>> Seems like LUCENE-6938 removed the merge logic that used the change
>>> id. Now the merge doesn't happen, and there's no logic that
>>> replaces it.
>>>
>>> I certainly can do with some help on this one.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Anshum Gupta
>>>  wrote:
 Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something here again.
 While trying to update the version on 5x, after having done that on
 5.5, using the addVersion.py script and following the instructions,
 the command consistently fails. Here's what I've been trying to do:

 python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/addVersion.py --changeid 49ba147 5.5.1

 Seems like addVersion.py is broken for minor version releases so
 I'd need some help with someone who has a better understanding of
 python than I do. I observed that 5.5.1 Version gets added to
 Version.java but also gets marked as deprecated.



 On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Anshum Gupta
  wrote:
> Too much going on! Thanks Yonik.
> I'll start working on the RC now.
>
> NOTE: Please don't back port any more issues right now. In case of
>   exceptions, please raise them here.
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Yonik Seeley 
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Anshum Gupta
>>  wrote:
>>  > Thanks. I'm waiting for the last back port of SOLR-8865.
>>
>> It should be already be there... I closed it yesterday.
>>
>> -Yonik
>>
>>  
>>  -
>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>



 --
 Anshum Gupta

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-28 Thread Anshum Gupta

I've updated the "Update Version Numbers in the Source Code" section on the
ReleaseToDo page. It'd be good to have some one else also take a look at it.

Here is what I've changed (only bug fix release):
* Only bump up the version on the release branch using addVersion.py
* Don't bump it up on the non-release versions in case of bug fix release.
* As part of the post-release process, use the commit hash from the release
branch version bump up, to increment the version on the non-release
branches.

I thought we could do this for non bug-fix releases too, but I was wrong.
Minor versions need to be bumped up on stable branches (and trunk) because
during the release process for say version 6.1, there might be commits for
6.2 and we'd need stable branches and master, both to support those commits.
We could debate about not needing something like this for major versions
but then I don't think it's worth the pain of different release processes
for each branch but I'm not stuck up with this.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Anshum Gupta 
wrote:

> That's fixed (about to commit the fix from LUCENE-7265) thought.
>
> While discussing the release process, Steve mentioned that we should
> document the failing back-compat index test on the non-release branches due
> to the missing index for the unreleased version.
> On discussing further, he suggested that we instead move the process of
> adding the version to non-release branches as a post-release task. This
> way, we wouldn't have failing tests until the release goes through and the
> back-compat indexes are checked in.
>
> We still would have failing tests for the release branch but there's no
> way around that.
>
> So, I'll change the documentation to move those steps as post-release
> tasks.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>
>> Seems like LUCENE-6938 removed the merge logic that used the change id.
>> Now the merge doesn't happen, and there's no logic that replaces it.
>>
>> I certainly can do with some help on this one.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something here again. While
>>> trying to update the version on 5x, after having done that on 5.5, using
>>> the addVersion.py script and following the instructions, the command
>>> consistently fails. Here's what I've been trying to do:
>>>
>>> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/addVersion.py --changeid 49ba147 5.5.1
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems like addVersion.py is broken for minor version releases so I'd
>>> need some help with someone who has a better understanding of python than I
>>> do. I observed that 5.5.1 Version gets added to Version.java but also gets
>>> marked as deprecated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Anshum Gupta 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Too much going on! Thanks Yonik.
 I'll start working on the RC now.

 NOTE: Please don't back port any more issues right now. In case of
 exceptions, please raise them here.

 On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Yonik Seeley 
 wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > Thanks. I'm waiting for the last back port of SOLR-8865.
>
> It should be already be there... I closed it yesterday.
> -Yonik
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

 --
 Anshum Gupta

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>

-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-28 Thread Anshum Gupta

That's fixed (about to commit the fix from LUCENE-7265) thought.

While discussing the release process, Steve mentioned that we should
document the failing back-compat index test on the non-release branches due
to the missing index for the unreleased version.
On discussing further, he suggested that we instead move the process of
adding the version to non-release branches as a post-release task. This
way, we wouldn't have failing tests until the release goes through and the
back-compat indexes are checked in.

We still would have failing tests for the release branch but there's no way
around that.

So, I'll change the documentation to move those steps as post-release tasks.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Anshum Gupta 
wrote:

> Seems like LUCENE-6938 removed the merge logic that used the change id.
> Now the merge doesn't happen, and there's no logic that replaces it.
>
> I certainly can do with some help on this one.
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>
>> Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something here again. While
>> trying to update the version on 5x, after having done that on 5.5, using
>> the addVersion.py script and following the instructions, the command
>> consistently fails. Here's what I've been trying to do:
>>
>> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/addVersion.py --changeid 49ba147 5.5.1
>>
>>
>> Seems like addVersion.py is broken for minor version releases so I'd need
>> some help with someone who has a better understanding of python than I do.
>> I observed that 5.5.1 Version gets added to Version.java but also gets
>> marked as deprecated.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Too much going on! Thanks Yonik.
>>> I'll start working on the RC now.
>>>
>>> NOTE: Please don't back port any more issues right now. In case of
>>> exceptions, please raise them here.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
>>>
 On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Anshum Gupta 
 wrote:
 > Thanks. I'm waiting for the last back port of SOLR-8865.

 It should be already be there... I closed it yesterday.
 -Yonik

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>

-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-28 Thread Anshum Gupta

Seems like LUCENE-6938 removed the merge logic that used the change id. Now
the merge doesn't happen, and there's no logic that replaces it.

I certainly can do with some help on this one.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Anshum Gupta 
wrote:

> Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something here again. While
> trying to update the version on 5x, after having done that on 5.5, using
> the addVersion.py script and following the instructions, the command
> consistently fails. Here's what I've been trying to do:
>
> python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/addVersion.py --changeid 49ba147 5.5.1
>
>
> Seems like addVersion.py is broken for minor version releases so I'd need
> some help with someone who has a better understanding of python than I do.
> I observed that 5.5.1 Version gets added to Version.java but also gets
> marked as deprecated.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>
>> Too much going on! Thanks Yonik.
>> I'll start working on the RC now.
>>
>> NOTE: Please don't back port any more issues right now. In case of
>> exceptions, please raise them here.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>>> wrote:
>>> > Thanks. I'm waiting for the last back port of SOLR-8865.
>>>
>>> It should be already be there... I closed it yesterday.
>>> -Yonik
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>



-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-28 Thread Anshum Gupta

Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something here again. While
trying to update the version on 5x, after having done that on 5.5, using
the addVersion.py script and following the instructions, the command
consistently fails. Here's what I've been trying to do:

python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/addVersion.py --changeid 49ba147 5.5.1

Seems like addVersion.py is broken for minor version releases so I'd need
some help with someone who has a better understanding of python than I do.
I observed that 5.5.1 Version gets added to Version.java but also gets
marked as deprecated.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Anshum Gupta 
wrote:

> Too much going on! Thanks Yonik.
> I'll start working on the RC now.
>
> NOTE: Please don't back port any more issues right now. In case of
> exceptions, please raise them here.
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> > Thanks. I'm waiting for the last back port of SOLR-8865.
>>
>> It should be already be there... I closed it yesterday.
>> -Yonik
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>

-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-28 Thread Anshum Gupta

Too much going on! Thanks Yonik.
I'll start working on the RC now.

NOTE: Please don't back port any more issues right now. In case of
exceptions, please raise them here.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > Thanks. I'm waiting for the last back port of SOLR-8865.
>
> It should be already be there... I closed it yesterday.
> -Yonik
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-28 Thread Yonik Seeley

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> Thanks. I'm waiting for the last back port of SOLR-8865.

It should be already be there... I closed it yesterday.
-Yonik

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-28 Thread Anshum Gupta

Thanks. I'm waiting for the last back port of SOLR-8865.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Steve Rowe  wrote:

> Anshum,
>
> FYI, I finished backporting SOLR-8082.
>
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com
>
> > On Apr 27, 2016, at 6:58 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> >
> > FYI, I'll wait until Uwe commits SOLR-9046 and then have the RC out.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > Thanks for clarifying Steve. I'll try it out when I'm ready. There are
> still 2 issues I'm waiting on.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> > So the general idea is to add the version-to-be-released on every branch
> from which a version will likely be cut in the future.  In this case that
> includes 5_5, 5x, 6_0, 6x, and master.
> >
> > I think you should run addVersion.py on 6_0, since a 6.0.1 release seems
> quite likely, but the script itself may need changes to make that work.
> >
> > And I think you’re right: there are two stable branches: 5x and 6x.
> There should be no problem on 5x, but again, 6x may require script changes
> to make it work.
> >
> > Sorry I can’t be more specific; you’re treading new ground here.
> >
> > --
> > Steve
> > www.lucidworks.com
> >
> > > On Apr 27, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I looked at it Steve but it's unclear in cases of release like this
> one i.e. 5x release going out when 6.0 is already out.
> > > The stable branch as per definition is 6x (and I guess 5x?).
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> > > Anshum,
> > >
> > > Have you seen
> https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo#Update_Version_Numbers_in_the_Source_Code
> ?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Steve
> > > www.lucidworks.com
> > >
> > > > On Apr 27, 2016, at 2:33 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Can someone confirm the steps to update version numbers in source
> code for the 5.5.1 release? Here's my understanding:
> > > > * on branch_5_5: addVersion.py 5.5.1
> > > > * Using the commit id from previous step, run addVersion.py on
> branch_5x
> > > >
> > > > * Should we also be running this on master, 6x, and 6.0  branches?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Anshum Gupta <
> ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> > > > Hi Steve,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I missed the JIRA comment. Do you want to take it up?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Steve Rowe 
> wrote:
> > > > Anshum, is it okay to backport SOLR-8082 to 5.5.1? - Steve
> > > >
> > > > > On Apr 27, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Yonik. I'll wait for this.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Yonik Seeley 
> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Anshum Gupta <
> ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Hey Tim, Sorry about going slow but there were a ton of
> back-ports.
> > > > > > I'm just waiting on Yonik or someone else who understands things
> better to
> > > > > > back-port SOLR-8886
> > > > >
> > > > > Ha, I saw that scroll past. but didn't realize I was being pinged.
> > > > > I'll take a look at it tomorrow.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Yonik
> > > > >
> > > > >
> -
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Anshum Gupta
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Anshum Gupta
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Anshum Gupta
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Anshum Gupta
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-27 Thread Steve Rowe

Anshum,

FYI, I finished backporting SOLR-8082.

--
Steve
www.lucidworks.com

> On Apr 27, 2016, at 6:58 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> 
> FYI, I'll wait until Uwe commits SOLR-9046 and then have the RC out.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying Steve. I'll try it out when I'm ready. There are still 
> 2 issues I'm waiting on.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> So the general idea is to add the version-to-be-released on every branch from 
> which a version will likely be cut in the future.  In this case that includes 
> 5_5, 5x, 6_0, 6x, and master.
> 
> I think you should run addVersion.py on 6_0, since a 6.0.1 release seems 
> quite likely, but the script itself may need changes to make that work.
> 
> And I think you’re right: there are two stable branches: 5x and 6x.  There 
> should be no problem on 5x, but again, 6x may require script changes to make 
> it work.
> 
> Sorry I can’t be more specific; you’re treading new ground here.
> 
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com
> 
> > On Apr 27, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> >
> > I looked at it Steve but it's unclear in cases of release like this one 
> > i.e. 5x release going out when 6.0 is already out.
> > The stable branch as per definition is 6x (and I guess 5x?).
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> > Anshum,
> >
> > Have you seen 
> > https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo#Update_Version_Numbers_in_the_Source_Code
> >  ?
> >
> > --
> > Steve
> > www.lucidworks.com
> >
> > > On Apr 27, 2016, at 2:33 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> > >
> > > Can someone confirm the steps to update version numbers in source code 
> > > for the 5.5.1 release? Here's my understanding:
> > > * on branch_5_5: addVersion.py 5.5.1
> > > * Using the commit id from previous step, run addVersion.py on branch_5x
> > >
> > > * Should we also be running this on master, 6x, and 6.0  branches?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Anshum Gupta  
> > > wrote:
> > > Hi Steve,
> > >
> > > Yes, I missed the JIRA comment. Do you want to take it up?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> > > Anshum, is it okay to backport SOLR-8082 to 5.5.1? - Steve
> > >
> > > > On Apr 27, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Anshum Gupta  
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Yonik. I'll wait for this.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Anshum Gupta  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Hey Tim, Sorry about going slow but there were a ton of back-ports.
> > > > > I'm just waiting on Yonik or someone else who understands things 
> > > > > better to
> > > > > back-port SOLR-8886
> > > >
> > > > Ha, I saw that scroll past. but didn't realize I was being pinged.
> > > > I'll take a look at it tomorrow.
> > > >
> > > > -Yonik
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Anshum Gupta
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Anshum Gupta
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Anshum Gupta
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Anshum Gupta
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Anshum Gupta


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-27 Thread Anshum Gupta

FYI, I'll wait until Uwe commits SOLR-9046 and then have the RC out.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Anshum Gupta 
wrote:

> Thanks for clarifying Steve. I'll try it out when I'm ready. There are
> still 2 issues I'm waiting on.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
>
>> So the general idea is to add the version-to-be-released on every branch
>> from which a version will likely be cut in the future.  In this case that
>> includes 5_5, 5x, 6_0, 6x, and master.
>>
>> I think you should run addVersion.py on 6_0, since a 6.0.1 release seems
>> quite likely, but the script itself may need changes to make that work.
>>
>> And I think you’re right: there are two stable branches: 5x and 6x.
>> There should be no problem on 5x, but again, 6x may require script changes
>> to make it work.
>>
>> Sorry I can’t be more specific; you’re treading new ground here.
>>
>> --
>> Steve
>> www.lucidworks.com
>>
>> > On Apr 27, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I looked at it Steve but it's unclear in cases of release like this one
>> i.e. 5x release going out when 6.0 is already out.
>> > The stable branch as per definition is 6x (and I guess 5x?).
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
>> > Anshum,
>> >
>> > Have you seen
>> https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo#Update_Version_Numbers_in_the_Source_Code
>> ?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Steve
>> > www.lucidworks.com
>> >
>> > > On Apr 27, 2016, at 2:33 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Can someone confirm the steps to update version numbers in source
>> code for the 5.5.1 release? Here's my understanding:
>> > > * on branch_5_5: addVersion.py 5.5.1
>> > > * Using the commit id from previous step, run addVersion.py on
>> branch_5x
>> > >
>> > > * Should we also be running this on master, 6x, and 6.0  branches?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Anshum Gupta <
>> ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
>> > > Hi Steve,
>> > >
>> > > Yes, I missed the JIRA comment. Do you want to take it up?
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
>> > > Anshum, is it okay to backport SOLR-8082 to 5.5.1? - Steve
>> > >
>> > > > On Apr 27, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks Yonik. I'll wait for this.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Yonik Seeley 
>> wrote:
>> > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Anshum Gupta <
>> ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
>> > > > > Hey Tim, Sorry about going slow but there were a ton of
>> back-ports.
>> > > > > I'm just waiting on Yonik or someone else who understands things
>> better to
>> > > > > back-port SOLR-8886
>> > > >
>> > > > Ha, I saw that scroll past. but didn't realize I was being pinged.
>> > > > I'll take a look at it tomorrow.
>> > > >
>> > > > -Yonik
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> -
>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Anshum Gupta
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Anshum Gupta
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Anshum Gupta
>> >
>> >
>> > -
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Anshum Gupta
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>



-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-27 Thread Anshum Gupta

Thanks for clarifying Steve. I'll try it out when I'm ready. There are
still 2 issues I'm waiting on.


On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Steve Rowe  wrote:

> So the general idea is to add the version-to-be-released on every branch
> from which a version will likely be cut in the future.  In this case that
> includes 5_5, 5x, 6_0, 6x, and master.
>
> I think you should run addVersion.py on 6_0, since a 6.0.1 release seems
> quite likely, but the script itself may need changes to make that work.
>
> And I think you’re right: there are two stable branches: 5x and 6x.  There
> should be no problem on 5x, but again, 6x may require script changes to
> make it work.
>
> Sorry I can’t be more specific; you’re treading new ground here.
>
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com
>
> > On Apr 27, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> >
> > I looked at it Steve but it's unclear in cases of release like this one
> i.e. 5x release going out when 6.0 is already out.
> > The stable branch as per definition is 6x (and I guess 5x?).
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> > Anshum,
> >
> > Have you seen
> https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo#Update_Version_Numbers_in_the_Source_Code
> ?
> >
> > --
> > Steve
> > www.lucidworks.com
> >
> > > On Apr 27, 2016, at 2:33 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Can someone confirm the steps to update version numbers in source code
> for the 5.5.1 release? Here's my understanding:
> > > * on branch_5_5: addVersion.py 5.5.1
> > > * Using the commit id from previous step, run addVersion.py on
> branch_5x
> > >
> > > * Should we also be running this on master, 6x, and 6.0  branches?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > > Hi Steve,
> > >
> > > Yes, I missed the JIRA comment. Do you want to take it up?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> > > Anshum, is it okay to backport SOLR-8082 to 5.5.1? - Steve
> > >
> > > > On Apr 27, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Yonik. I'll wait for this.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Yonik Seeley 
> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Anshum Gupta <
> ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> > > > > Hey Tim, Sorry about going slow but there were a ton of back-ports.
> > > > > I'm just waiting on Yonik or someone else who understands things
> better to
> > > > > back-port SOLR-8886
> > > >
> > > > Ha, I saw that scroll past. but didn't realize I was being pinged.
> > > > I'll take a look at it tomorrow.
> > > >
> > > > -Yonik
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Anshum Gupta
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Anshum Gupta
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Anshum Gupta
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-27 Thread Steve Rowe

So the general idea is to add the version-to-be-released on every branch from 
which a version will likely be cut in the future.  In this case that includes 
5_5, 5x, 6_0, 6x, and master.
 
I think you should run addVersion.py on 6_0, since a 6.0.1 release seems quite 
likely, but the script itself may need changes to make that work.

And I think you’re right: there are two stable branches: 5x and 6x.  There 
should be no problem on 5x, but again, 6x may require script changes to make it 
work.

Sorry I can’t be more specific; you’re treading new ground here.

--
Steve
www.lucidworks.com

> On Apr 27, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> 
> I looked at it Steve but it's unclear in cases of release like this one i.e. 
> 5x release going out when 6.0 is already out.
> The stable branch as per definition is 6x (and I guess 5x?).
> 
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> Anshum,
> 
> Have you seen 
> https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo#Update_Version_Numbers_in_the_Source_Code
>  ?
> 
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com
> 
> > On Apr 27, 2016, at 2:33 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> >
> > Can someone confirm the steps to update version numbers in source code for 
> > the 5.5.1 release? Here's my understanding:
> > * on branch_5_5: addVersion.py 5.5.1
> > * Using the commit id from previous step, run addVersion.py on branch_5x
> >
> > * Should we also be running this on master, 6x, and 6.0  branches?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Anshum Gupta  
> > wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > Yes, I missed the JIRA comment. Do you want to take it up?
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> > Anshum, is it okay to backport SOLR-8082 to 5.5.1? - Steve
> >
> > > On Apr 27, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Yonik. I'll wait for this.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Anshum Gupta  
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hey Tim, Sorry about going slow but there were a ton of back-ports.
> > > > I'm just waiting on Yonik or someone else who understands things better 
> > > > to
> > > > back-port SOLR-8886
> > >
> > > Ha, I saw that scroll past. but didn't realize I was being pinged.
> > > I'll take a look at it tomorrow.
> > >
> > > -Yonik
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Anshum Gupta
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Anshum Gupta


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-27 Thread Anshum Gupta

Hi Karthik,

I would like to have the fixes as part of 5.5.1 but I also wouldn't want to
block a release for non-critical open issues.

Both of those issues have no commits and I'm almost done with my back
ports. So, unless someone speaks about about actively working on these and
makes a case for this being a blocker, I'll continue with my 5.5.1 process
without including these.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Karthik Ramachandran <
kramachand...@commvault.com> wrote:

> Hey Anshum,
>
>
>
> Can you check if you can take SOLR-9034 for 5.5.1?
>
>
>
> Will SOLR-8812 make it for 5.5.1?
>
>
>
> With Thanks & Regards
> Karthik Ramachandran
> CommVault
> P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
>
>
> ***Legal Disclaimer***
> "This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the
> sole use of the intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, use or 
> distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received the message by mistake,
> please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. Thank you."
> **
>
>

-- 
Anshum Gupta

RE: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-27 Thread Karthik Ramachandran

Hey Anshum,

Can you check if you can take SOLR-9034 for 5.5.1?

Will SOLR-8812 make it for 5.5.1?

With Thanks & Regards
Karthik Ramachandran
CommVault
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to



***Legal Disclaimer***
"This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the
sole use of the intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, use or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received the message by mistake,
please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. Thank you."
**

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-27 Thread Anshum Gupta

Hi Bram,

Sure, as long as someone who understands and has access to Windows can take
a look at it and commit it.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Bram Van Dam  wrote:

> Hey Anshum,
>
> Can you have a look at SOLR-9046 as well? It's something that's been
> bugging me in 5.5. It's fine if it doesn't make it to 5.5.1, but it
> would be really nice if it did!
>
> Thx,
>
>  - Bram
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-27 Thread Anshum Gupta

I looked at it Steve but it's unclear in cases of release like this one
i.e. 5x release going out when 6.0 is already out.
The stable branch as per definition is 6x (and I guess 5x?).

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:

> Anshum,
>
> Have you seen
> https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo#Update_Version_Numbers_in_the_Source_Code
> ?
>
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com
>
> > On Apr 27, 2016, at 2:33 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> >
> > Can someone confirm the steps to update version numbers in source code
> for the 5.5.1 release? Here's my understanding:
> > * on branch_5_5: addVersion.py 5.5.1
> > * Using the commit id from previous step, run addVersion.py on branch_5x
> >
> > * Should we also be running this on master, 6x, and 6.0  branches?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > Yes, I missed the JIRA comment. Do you want to take it up?
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> > Anshum, is it okay to backport SOLR-8082 to 5.5.1? - Steve
> >
> > > On Apr 27, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Yonik. I'll wait for this.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Yonik Seeley 
> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > > > Hey Tim, Sorry about going slow but there were a ton of back-ports.
> > > > I'm just waiting on Yonik or someone else who understands things
> better to
> > > > back-port SOLR-8886
> > >
> > > Ha, I saw that scroll past. but didn't realize I was being pinged.
> > > I'll take a look at it tomorrow.
> > >
> > > -Yonik
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Anshum Gupta
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-27 Thread Bram Van Dam

Hey Anshum,

Can you have a look at SOLR-9046 as well? It's something that's been
bugging me in 5.5. It's fine if it doesn't make it to 5.5.1, but it
would be really nice if it did!

Thx,

 - Bram

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-27 Thread Steve Rowe

Anshum,

Have you seen 
https://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseTodo#Update_Version_Numbers_in_the_Source_Code
 ?

--
Steve
www.lucidworks.com

> On Apr 27, 2016, at 2:33 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> 
> Can someone confirm the steps to update version numbers in source code for 
> the 5.5.1 release? Here's my understanding:
> * on branch_5_5: addVersion.py 5.5.1
> * Using the commit id from previous step, run addVersion.py on branch_5x
> 
> * Should we also be running this on master, 6x, and 6.0  branches?
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> 
> Yes, I missed the JIRA comment. Do you want to take it up?
> 
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> Anshum, is it okay to backport SOLR-8082 to 5.5.1? - Steve
> 
> > On Apr 27, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Yonik. I'll wait for this.
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Anshum Gupta  
> > wrote:
> > > Hey Tim, Sorry about going slow but there were a ton of back-ports.
> > > I'm just waiting on Yonik or someone else who understands things better to
> > > back-port SOLR-8886
> >
> > Ha, I saw that scroll past. but didn't realize I was being pinged.
> > I'll take a look at it tomorrow.
> >
> > -Yonik
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Anshum Gupta
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Anshum Gupta


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-27 Thread Anshum Gupta

Thanks Steve.

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:

> Hi Anshum,
>
> Yes, I’ll do the backport now.
>
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com
>
> > On Apr 27, 2016, at 2:28 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > Yes, I missed the JIRA comment. Do you want to take it up?
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> > Anshum, is it okay to backport SOLR-8082 to 5.5.1? - Steve
> >
> > > On Apr 27, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Yonik. I'll wait for this.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Yonik Seeley 
> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > > > Hey Tim, Sorry about going slow but there were a ton of back-ports.
> > > > I'm just waiting on Yonik or someone else who understands things
> better to
> > > > back-port SOLR-8886
> > >
> > > Ha, I saw that scroll past. but didn't realize I was being pinged.
> > > I'll take a look at it tomorrow.
> > >
> > > -Yonik
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Anshum Gupta
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-27 Thread Steve Rowe

Hi Anshum,

Yes, I’ll do the backport now.

--
Steve
www.lucidworks.com

> On Apr 27, 2016, at 2:28 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> Yes, I missed the JIRA comment. Do you want to take it up?
> 
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
> Anshum, is it okay to backport SOLR-8082 to 5.5.1? - Steve
> 
> > On Apr 27, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Yonik. I'll wait for this.
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Anshum Gupta  
> > wrote:
> > > Hey Tim, Sorry about going slow but there were a ton of back-ports.
> > > I'm just waiting on Yonik or someone else who understands things better to
> > > back-port SOLR-8886
> >
> > Ha, I saw that scroll past. but didn't realize I was being pinged.
> > I'll take a look at it tomorrow.
> >
> > -Yonik
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Anshum Gupta


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-27 Thread Anshum Gupta

Can someone confirm the steps to update version numbers in source code for
the 5.5.1 release? Here's my understanding:
* on branch_5_5: addVersion.py 5.5.1
* Using the commit id from previous step, run addVersion.py on branch_5x

* Should we also be running this on master, 6x, and 6.0  branches?


On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Anshum Gupta 
wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> Yes, I missed the JIRA comment. Do you want to take it up?
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:
>
>> Anshum, is it okay to backport SOLR-8082 to 5.5.1? - Steve
>>
>> > On Apr 27, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks Yonik. I'll wait for this.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Yonik Seeley 
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> > > Hey Tim, Sorry about going slow but there were a ton of back-ports.
>> > > I'm just waiting on Yonik or someone else who understands things
>> better to
>> > > back-port SOLR-8886
>> >
>> > Ha, I saw that scroll past. but didn't realize I was being pinged.
>> > I'll take a look at it tomorrow.
>> >
>> > -Yonik
>> >
>> > -
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Anshum Gupta
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>



-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-27 Thread Anshum Gupta

Hi Steve,

Yes, I missed the JIRA comment. Do you want to take it up?

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Steve Rowe  wrote:

> Anshum, is it okay to backport SOLR-8082 to 5.5.1? - Steve
>
> > On Apr 27, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Yonik. I'll wait for this.
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > > Hey Tim, Sorry about going slow but there were a ton of back-ports.
> > > I'm just waiting on Yonik or someone else who understands things
> better to
> > > back-port SOLR-8886
> >
> > Ha, I saw that scroll past. but didn't realize I was being pinged.
> > I'll take a look at it tomorrow.
> >
> > -Yonik
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-27 Thread Steve Rowe

Anshum, is it okay to backport SOLR-8082 to 5.5.1? - Steve

> On Apr 27, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Yonik. I'll wait for this.
> 
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> > Hey Tim, Sorry about going slow but there were a ton of back-ports.
> > I'm just waiting on Yonik or someone else who understands things better to
> > back-port SOLR-8886
> 
> Ha, I saw that scroll past. but didn't realize I was being pinged.
> I'll take a look at it tomorrow.
> 
> -Yonik
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Anshum Gupta


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-27 Thread Anshum Gupta

Thanks Yonik. I'll wait for this.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > Hey Tim, Sorry about going slow but there were a ton of back-ports.
> > I'm just waiting on Yonik or someone else who understands things better
> to
> > back-port SOLR-8886
>
> Ha, I saw that scroll past. but didn't realize I was being pinged.
> I'll take a look at it tomorrow.
>
> -Yonik
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-27 Thread Timothy Potter

no worries, just wanted to get a sense for the timing. Thanks for the update

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> Hey Tim, Sorry about going slow but there were a ton of back-ports.
> I'm just waiting on Yonik or someone else who understands things better to
> back-port SOLR-8886 and SOLR-8885. I just got done with back-porting
> everything else earlier today so I'll be ready to spin the RC as soon as
> those two are done. If they aren't done by tomorrow morning, I'll have an RC
> out without those anyways.
> Are you generally enquiring ?
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Timothy Potter 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Anshum,
>>
>> What's the status of 5.5.1 RC1?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Timothy Potter 
>> wrote:
>> > it's in, thanks! b3fe7f7..9820406  branch_5_5 -> branch_5_5
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>> > wrote:
>> >> I trust you Tim! Go for it.
>> >>
>> >> I wouldn't even commit to review this as there's a lot of stuff on my
>> >> plate.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Timothy Potter 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Anshum,
>> >>>
>> >>> I'd like to include the fix for
>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9007 into 5.5.1. It's super
>> >>> minor (w/ very low risk) and patch is ready. I'd like it to be
>> >>> included because it gives a poor getting started experience if the
>> >>> user selects managed_schema_configs b/c it doesn't exist anymore.
>> >>>
>> >>> Tim
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Anshum Gupta
>> >>> 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > Cassandra, I don't plan on back porting all bug fixes from 6.0 but
>> >>> > only
>> >>> > the
>> >>> > ones that I understand and don't require invasive code changes. I am
>> >>> > open to
>> >>> > others helping out and back-porting stuff that they understand as
>> >>> > long
>> >>> > as
>> >>> > it's communicated.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Cassandra Targett
>> >>> > 
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Anshum, Is your plan to backport all the bug fixes that were
>> >>> >> released
>> >>> >> in
>> >>> >> 6.0 to 5.5.1? Or do you have a selection process you plan to use?
>> >>> >> Just
>> >>> >> curious mostly.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Timothy Potter
>> >>> >> 
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> 8908 is on branch_5_5 now (14ec48a)
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Anshum Gupta
>> >>> >>> 
>> >>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >>> > As Yonik mentioned, I wouldn't be cutting a branch but directly
>> >>> >>> > spinning an
>> >>> >>> > RC. I have a few things on my plate so I think I'll only be able
>> >>> >>> > to
>> >>> >>> > get
>> >>> >>> > to
>> >>> >>> > it over the weekend or by Monday, so you still have some time.
>> >>> >>> > I wouldn't rush the release specially as this seems like a good
>> >>> >>> > candidate
>> >>> >>> > for 5.5.1.
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Noble Paul
>> >>> >>> > 
>> >>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> When do you plan to cut a branch, I hope we can include
>> >>> >>> >> SOLR-8662
>> >>> >>> >> into
>> >>> >>> >> the
>> >>> >>> >> release
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Bram Van Dam
>> >>> >>> >> 
>> >>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >>> On 13/04/16 19:26, Anshum Gupta wrote:
>> >>> >>> >>> > Can you please test it with 5.5.1 so someone could back port
>> >>> >>> >>> > it.
>> >>> >>> >>> > Thanks.
>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >>> I've finished testing SOLR-8145 on branch_5_5. Patch applies
>> >>> >>> >>> cleanly
>> >>> >>> >>> and
>> >>> >>> >>> the bugfix works fine. I don't have commit access, so someone
>> >>> >>> >>> else
>> >>> >>> >>> will
>> >>> >>> >>> have to take care of that part.
>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >>> git cherry-pick 80801a2 does the trick.
>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >>>  - Bram
>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >>> -
>> >>> >>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> >>> >>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> >> --
>> >>> >>> >> -
>> >>> >>> >> Noble Paul
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> >
>> >>> >>> > --
>> >>> >>> > Anshum Gupta
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> -
>> >>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> >>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-26 Thread Yonik Seeley

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> Hey Tim, Sorry about going slow but there were a ton of back-ports.
> I'm just waiting on Yonik or someone else who understands things better to
> back-port SOLR-8886

Ha, I saw that scroll past. but didn't realize I was being pinged.
I'll take a look at it tomorrow.

-Yonik

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-26 Thread Anshum Gupta

Hey Tim, Sorry about going slow but there were a ton of back-ports.
I'm just waiting on Yonik or someone else who understands things better to
back-port SOLR-8886 and SOLR-8885. I just got done with back-porting
everything else earlier today so I'll be ready to spin the RC as soon as
those two are done. If they aren't done by tomorrow morning, I'll have an
RC out without those anyways.
Are you generally enquiring ?

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Timothy Potter 
wrote:

> Hi Anshum,
>
> What's the status of 5.5.1 RC1?
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Timothy Potter 
> wrote:
> > it's in, thanks! b3fe7f7..9820406  branch_5_5 -> branch_5_5
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> >> I trust you Tim! Go for it.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't even commit to review this as there's a lot of stuff on my
> plate.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Timothy Potter 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Anshum,
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to include the fix for
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9007 into 5.5.1. It's super
> >>> minor (w/ very low risk) and patch is ready. I'd like it to be
> >>> included because it gives a poor getting started experience if the
> >>> user selects managed_schema_configs b/c it doesn't exist anymore.
> >>>
> >>> Tim
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Anshum Gupta  >
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > Cassandra, I don't plan on back porting all bug fixes from 6.0 but
> only
> >>> > the
> >>> > ones that I understand and don't require invasive code changes. I am
> >>> > open to
> >>> > others helping out and back-porting stuff that they understand as
> long
> >>> > as
> >>> > it's communicated.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Cassandra Targett
> >>> > 
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Anshum, Is your plan to backport all the bug fixes that were
> released
> >>> >> in
> >>> >> 6.0 to 5.5.1? Or do you have a selection process you plan to use?
> Just
> >>> >> curious mostly.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Timothy Potter <
> thelabd...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> 8908 is on branch_5_5 now (14ec48a)
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Anshum Gupta <
> ans...@anshumgupta.net>
> >>> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>> > As Yonik mentioned, I wouldn't be cutting a branch but directly
> >>> >>> > spinning an
> >>> >>> > RC. I have a few things on my plate so I think I'll only be able
> to
> >>> >>> > get
> >>> >>> > to
> >>> >>> > it over the weekend or by Monday, so you still have some time.
> >>> >>> > I wouldn't rush the release specially as this seems like a good
> >>> >>> > candidate
> >>> >>> > for 5.5.1.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Noble Paul <
> noble.p...@gmail.com>
> >>> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> When do you plan to cut a branch, I hope we can include
> SOLR-8662
> >>> >>> >> into
> >>> >>> >> the
> >>> >>> >> release
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Bram Van Dam
> >>> >>> >> 
> >>> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> On 13/04/16 19:26, Anshum Gupta wrote:
> >>> >>> >>> > Can you please test it with 5.5.1 so someone could back port
> it.
> >>> >>> >>> > Thanks.
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> I've finished testing SOLR-8145 on branch_5_5. Patch applies
> >>> >>> >>> cleanly
> >>> >>> >>> and
> >>> >>> >>> the bugfix works fine. I don't have commit access, so someone
> else
> >>> >>> >>> will
> >>> >>> >>> have to take care of that part.
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> git cherry-pick 80801a2 does the trick.
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> Thanks,
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>>  - Bram
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>>
> -
> >>> >>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> >>> >>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> --
> >>> >>> >> -
> >>> >>> >> Noble Paul
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > --
> >>> >>> > Anshum Gupta
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> -
> >>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> >>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Anshum Gupta
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Anshum Gupta
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-26 Thread Timothy Potter

Hi Anshum,

What's the status of 5.5.1 RC1?

Thanks.

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Timothy Potter  wrote:
> it's in, thanks! b3fe7f7..9820406  branch_5_5 -> branch_5_5
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
>> I trust you Tim! Go for it.
>>
>> I wouldn't even commit to review this as there's a lot of stuff on my plate.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Timothy Potter 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Anshum,
>>>
>>> I'd like to include the fix for
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9007 into 5.5.1. It's super
>>> minor (w/ very low risk) and patch is ready. I'd like it to be
>>> included because it gives a poor getting started experience if the
>>> user selects managed_schema_configs b/c it doesn't exist anymore.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Anshum Gupta 
>>> wrote:
>>> > Cassandra, I don't plan on back porting all bug fixes from 6.0 but only
>>> > the
>>> > ones that I understand and don't require invasive code changes. I am
>>> > open to
>>> > others helping out and back-porting stuff that they understand as long
>>> > as
>>> > it's communicated.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Cassandra Targett
>>> > 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Anshum, Is your plan to backport all the bug fixes that were released
>>> >> in
>>> >> 6.0 to 5.5.1? Or do you have a selection process you plan to use? Just
>>> >> curious mostly.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Timothy Potter 
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 8908 is on branch_5_5 now (14ec48a)
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Anshum Gupta 
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>> > As Yonik mentioned, I wouldn't be cutting a branch but directly
>>> >>> > spinning an
>>> >>> > RC. I have a few things on my plate so I think I'll only be able to
>>> >>> > get
>>> >>> > to
>>> >>> > it over the weekend or by Monday, so you still have some time.
>>> >>> > I wouldn't rush the release specially as this seems like a good
>>> >>> > candidate
>>> >>> > for 5.5.1.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Noble Paul 
>>> >>> > wrote:
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> When do you plan to cut a branch, I hope we can include SOLR-8662
>>> >>> >> into
>>> >>> >> the
>>> >>> >> release
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Bram Van Dam
>>> >>> >> 
>>> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> On 13/04/16 19:26, Anshum Gupta wrote:
>>> >>> >>> > Can you please test it with 5.5.1 so someone could back port it.
>>> >>> >>> > Thanks.
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> I've finished testing SOLR-8145 on branch_5_5. Patch applies
>>> >>> >>> cleanly
>>> >>> >>> and
>>> >>> >>> the bugfix works fine. I don't have commit access, so someone else
>>> >>> >>> will
>>> >>> >>> have to take care of that part.
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> git cherry-pick 80801a2 does the trick.
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> Thanks,
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>>  - Bram
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> -
>>> >>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>> >>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> --
>>> >>> >> -
>>> >>> >> Noble Paul
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > --
>>> >>> > Anshum Gupta
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -
>>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Anshum Gupta
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-18 Thread Timothy Potter

it's in, thanks! b3fe7f7..9820406  branch_5_5 -> branch_5_5

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> I trust you Tim! Go for it.
>
> I wouldn't even commit to review this as there's a lot of stuff on my plate.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Timothy Potter 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Anshum,
>>
>> I'd like to include the fix for
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9007 into 5.5.1. It's super
>> minor (w/ very low risk) and patch is ready. I'd like it to be
>> included because it gives a poor getting started experience if the
>> user selects managed_schema_configs b/c it doesn't exist anymore.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> > Cassandra, I don't plan on back porting all bug fixes from 6.0 but only
>> > the
>> > ones that I understand and don't require invasive code changes. I am
>> > open to
>> > others helping out and back-porting stuff that they understand as long
>> > as
>> > it's communicated.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Cassandra Targett
>> > 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Anshum, Is your plan to backport all the bug fixes that were released
>> >> in
>> >> 6.0 to 5.5.1? Or do you have a selection process you plan to use? Just
>> >> curious mostly.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Timothy Potter 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 8908 is on branch_5_5 now (14ec48a)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Anshum Gupta 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > As Yonik mentioned, I wouldn't be cutting a branch but directly
>> >>> > spinning an
>> >>> > RC. I have a few things on my plate so I think I'll only be able to
>> >>> > get
>> >>> > to
>> >>> > it over the weekend or by Monday, so you still have some time.
>> >>> > I wouldn't rush the release specially as this seems like a good
>> >>> > candidate
>> >>> > for 5.5.1.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Noble Paul 
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> When do you plan to cut a branch, I hope we can include SOLR-8662
>> >>> >> into
>> >>> >> the
>> >>> >> release
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Bram Van Dam
>> >>> >> 
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> On 13/04/16 19:26, Anshum Gupta wrote:
>> >>> >>> > Can you please test it with 5.5.1 so someone could back port it.
>> >>> >>> > Thanks.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> I've finished testing SOLR-8145 on branch_5_5. Patch applies
>> >>> >>> cleanly
>> >>> >>> and
>> >>> >>> the bugfix works fine. I don't have commit access, so someone else
>> >>> >>> will
>> >>> >>> have to take care of that part.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> git cherry-pick 80801a2 does the trick.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>  - Bram
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> -
>> >>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> >>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> --
>> >>> >> -
>> >>> >> Noble Paul
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > Anshum Gupta
>> >>>
>> >>> -
>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Anshum Gupta
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-18 Thread Anshum Gupta

I trust you Tim! Go for it.

I wouldn't even commit to review this as there's a lot of stuff on my plate.


On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Timothy Potter 
wrote:

> Hi Anshum,
>
> I'd like to include the fix for
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9007 into 5.5.1. It's super
> minor (w/ very low risk) and patch is ready. I'd like it to be
> included because it gives a poor getting started experience if the
> user selects managed_schema_configs b/c it doesn't exist anymore.
>
> Tim
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > Cassandra, I don't plan on back porting all bug fixes from 6.0 but only
> the
> > ones that I understand and don't require invasive code changes. I am
> open to
> > others helping out and back-porting stuff that they understand as long as
> > it's communicated.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Cassandra Targett <
> casstarg...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Anshum, Is your plan to backport all the bug fixes that were released in
> >> 6.0 to 5.5.1? Or do you have a selection process you plan to use? Just
> >> curious mostly.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Timothy Potter 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 8908 is on branch_5_5 now (14ec48a)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > As Yonik mentioned, I wouldn't be cutting a branch but directly
> >>> > spinning an
> >>> > RC. I have a few things on my plate so I think I'll only be able to
> get
> >>> > to
> >>> > it over the weekend or by Monday, so you still have some time.
> >>> > I wouldn't rush the release specially as this seems like a good
> >>> > candidate
> >>> > for 5.5.1.
> >>> >
> >>> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Noble Paul 
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> When do you plan to cut a branch, I hope we can include SOLR-8662
> into
> >>> >> the
> >>> >> release
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Bram Van Dam  >
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On 13/04/16 19:26, Anshum Gupta wrote:
> >>> >>> > Can you please test it with 5.5.1 so someone could back port it.
> >>> >>> > Thanks.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I've finished testing SOLR-8145 on branch_5_5. Patch applies
> cleanly
> >>> >>> and
> >>> >>> the bugfix works fine. I don't have commit access, so someone else
> >>> >>> will
> >>> >>> have to take care of that part.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> git cherry-pick 80801a2 does the trick.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Thanks,
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>  - Bram
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> -
> >>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> >>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> -
> >>> >> Noble Paul
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Anshum Gupta
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-18 Thread Timothy Potter

Hi Anshum,

I'd like to include the fix for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9007 into 5.5.1. It's super
minor (w/ very low risk) and patch is ready. I'd like it to be
included because it gives a poor getting started experience if the
user selects managed_schema_configs b/c it doesn't exist anymore.

Tim

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> Cassandra, I don't plan on back porting all bug fixes from 6.0 but only the
> ones that I understand and don't require invasive code changes. I am open to
> others helping out and back-porting stuff that they understand as long as
> it's communicated.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Cassandra Targett 
> wrote:
>>
>> Anshum, Is your plan to backport all the bug fixes that were released in
>> 6.0 to 5.5.1? Or do you have a selection process you plan to use? Just
>> curious mostly.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Timothy Potter 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 8908 is on branch_5_5 now (14ec48a)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Anshum Gupta 
>>> wrote:
>>> > As Yonik mentioned, I wouldn't be cutting a branch but directly
>>> > spinning an
>>> > RC. I have a few things on my plate so I think I'll only be able to get
>>> > to
>>> > it over the weekend or by Monday, so you still have some time.
>>> > I wouldn't rush the release specially as this seems like a good
>>> > candidate
>>> > for 5.5.1.
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Noble Paul 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> When do you plan to cut a branch, I hope we can include SOLR-8662 into
>>> >> the
>>> >> release
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Bram Van Dam 
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 13/04/16 19:26, Anshum Gupta wrote:
>>> >>> > Can you please test it with 5.5.1 so someone could back port it.
>>> >>> > Thanks.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I've finished testing SOLR-8145 on branch_5_5. Patch applies cleanly
>>> >>> and
>>> >>> the bugfix works fine. I don't have commit access, so someone else
>>> >>> will
>>> >>> have to take care of that part.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> git cherry-pick 80801a2 does the trick.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks,
>>> >>>
>>> >>>  - Bram
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -
>>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> -
>>> >> Noble Paul
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Anshum Gupta
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-18 Thread Anshum Gupta

Cassandra, I don't plan on back porting all bug fixes from 6.0 but only the
ones that I understand and don't require invasive code changes. I am open
to others helping out and back-porting stuff that they understand as long
as it's communicated.


On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Cassandra Targett 
wrote:

> Anshum, Is your plan to backport all the bug fixes that were released in
> 6.0 to 5.5.1? Or do you have a selection process you plan to use? Just
> curious mostly.
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Timothy Potter 
> wrote:
>
>> 8908 is on branch_5_5 now (14ec48a)
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> > As Yonik mentioned, I wouldn't be cutting a branch but directly
>> spinning an
>> > RC. I have a few things on my plate so I think I'll only be able to get
>> to
>> > it over the weekend or by Monday, so you still have some time.
>> > I wouldn't rush the release specially as this seems like a good
>> candidate
>> > for 5.5.1.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Noble Paul 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> When do you plan to cut a branch, I hope we can include SOLR-8662 into
>> the
>> >> release
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Bram Van Dam 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On 13/04/16 19:26, Anshum Gupta wrote:
>> >>> > Can you please test it with 5.5.1 so someone could back port it.
>> >>> > Thanks.
>> >>>
>> >>> I've finished testing SOLR-8145 on branch_5_5. Patch applies cleanly
>> and
>> >>> the bugfix works fine. I don't have commit access, so someone else
>> will
>> >>> have to take care of that part.
>> >>>
>> >>> git cherry-pick 80801a2 does the trick.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>>
>> >>>  - Bram
>> >>>
>> >>> -
>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> -
>> >> Noble Paul
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Anshum Gupta
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-18 Thread Cassandra Targett

Anshum, Is your plan to backport all the bug fixes that were released in
6.0 to 5.5.1? Or do you have a selection process you plan to use? Just
curious mostly.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Timothy Potter 
wrote:

> 8908 is on branch_5_5 now (14ec48a)
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > As Yonik mentioned, I wouldn't be cutting a branch but directly spinning
> an
> > RC. I have a few things on my plate so I think I'll only be able to get
> to
> > it over the weekend or by Monday, so you still have some time.
> > I wouldn't rush the release specially as this seems like a good candidate
> > for 5.5.1.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Noble Paul 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> When do you plan to cut a branch, I hope we can include SOLR-8662 into
> the
> >> release
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Bram Van Dam 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 13/04/16 19:26, Anshum Gupta wrote:
> >>> > Can you please test it with 5.5.1 so someone could back port it.
> >>> > Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> I've finished testing SOLR-8145 on branch_5_5. Patch applies cleanly
> and
> >>> the bugfix works fine. I don't have commit access, so someone else will
> >>> have to take care of that part.
> >>>
> >>> git cherry-pick 80801a2 does the trick.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>>  - Bram
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> -
> >> Noble Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-14 Thread Timothy Potter

8908 is on branch_5_5 now (14ec48a)


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> As Yonik mentioned, I wouldn't be cutting a branch but directly spinning an
> RC. I have a few things on my plate so I think I'll only be able to get to
> it over the weekend or by Monday, so you still have some time.
> I wouldn't rush the release specially as this seems like a good candidate
> for 5.5.1.
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Noble Paul  wrote:
>>
>> When do you plan to cut a branch, I hope we can include SOLR-8662 into the
>> release
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Bram Van Dam 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13/04/16 19:26, Anshum Gupta wrote:
>>> > Can you please test it with 5.5.1 so someone could back port it.
>>> > Thanks.
>>>
>>> I've finished testing SOLR-8145 on branch_5_5. Patch applies cleanly and
>>> the bugfix works fine. I don't have commit access, so someone else will
>>> have to take care of that part.
>>>
>>> git cherry-pick 80801a2 does the trick.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>  - Bram
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -
>> Noble Paul
>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-14 Thread Anshum Gupta

As Yonik mentioned, I wouldn't be cutting a branch but directly spinning an
RC. I have a few things on my plate so I think I'll only be able to get to
it over the weekend or by Monday, so you still have some time.
I wouldn't rush the release specially as this seems like a good candidate
for 5.5.1.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Noble Paul  wrote:

> When do you plan to cut a branch, I hope we can include SOLR-8662 into the
> release
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Bram Van Dam 
> wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/16 19:26, Anshum Gupta wrote:
>> > Can you please test it with 5.5.1 so someone could back port it. Thanks.
>>
>> I've finished testing SOLR-8145 on branch_5_5. Patch applies cleanly and
>> the bugfix works fine. I don't have commit access, so someone else will
>> have to take care of that part.
>>
>> git cherry-pick 80801a2 does the trick.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>  - Bram
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -
> Noble Paul
>

-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-14 Thread Anshum Gupta

If someone else doesn't get to it before I do, I'll do that as part of the
6.0 change log triage/back-port.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Bram Van Dam  wrote:

> On 13/04/16 19:26, Anshum Gupta wrote:
> > Can you please test it with 5.5.1 so someone could back port it. Thanks.
>
> I've finished testing SOLR-8145 on branch_5_5. Patch applies cleanly and
> the bugfix works fine. I don't have commit access, so someone else will
> have to take care of that part.
>
> git cherry-pick 80801a2 does the trick.
>
> Thanks,
>
>  - Bram
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-14 Thread Anshum Gupta

Thanks Tim. I'll take a look.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Timothy Potter 
wrote:

> Thanks Anshum. I've pushed a unit test for that ticket ... can you
> give it a quick look?
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > Go for it Tim! Let us try to get it in with the test and if you need a
> bit
> > of time for that, let me know.
> >
> > If you think getting the test would take a lot of time, let us at least
> get
> > the fix in 5.5.1 if you are confident about the fix.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Timothy Potter 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Anshum,
> >>
> >> I think we should also consider SOLR-8908 for 5.5.1, it's a pretty bad
> >> leak esp. in envs that make lots of reloads due to schema edits. I
> >> have a fix up, but am struggling to create a test for it atm.
> >>
> >> Tim
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Bram Van Dam 
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 11/04/16 19:04, Ishan Chattopadhyaya wrote:
> >> >> I'd like someone to backport the following:
> >> >> SOLR-8838
> >> >> SOLR-8082
> >> >> SOLR-8865
> >> >
> >> > Can we please add SOLR-8145 to that list? It fixes an incorrect
> >> > oom_killer argument in the startupt script and a Jetty warning on
> >> > startup.
> >> >
> >> > Please let me know if you'd like me to help test 5.5.1.
> >> >
> >> >  - Bram
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >> >
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-14 Thread Yonik Seeley

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Noble Paul  wrote:
> When do you plan to cut a branch, I hope we can include SOLR-8662 into the
> release

We don't create per-bugfix-release branches.  All 5.5.x releases will
be made from branch_5_5, which already exists.

-Yonik

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-14 Thread Noble Paul

When do you plan to cut a branch, I hope we can include SOLR-8662 into the
release

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Bram Van Dam  wrote:

> On 13/04/16 19:26, Anshum Gupta wrote:
> > Can you please test it with 5.5.1 so someone could back port it. Thanks.
>
> I've finished testing SOLR-8145 on branch_5_5. Patch applies cleanly and
> the bugfix works fine. I don't have commit access, so someone else will
> have to take care of that part.
>
> git cherry-pick 80801a2 does the trick.
>
> Thanks,
>
>  - Bram
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 
-
Noble Paul

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-14 Thread Bram Van Dam

On 13/04/16 19:26, Anshum Gupta wrote:
> Can you please test it with 5.5.1 so someone could back port it. Thanks.

I've finished testing SOLR-8145 on branch_5_5. Patch applies cleanly and
the bugfix works fine. I don't have commit access, so someone else will
have to take care of that part.

git cherry-pick 80801a2 does the trick.

Thanks,

 - Bram

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-13 Thread Timothy Potter

Thanks Anshum. I've pushed a unit test for that ticket ... can you
give it a quick look?

Cheers,
Tim

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> Go for it Tim! Let us try to get it in with the test and if you need a bit
> of time for that, let me know.
>
> If you think getting the test would take a lot of time, let us at least get
> the fix in 5.5.1 if you are confident about the fix.
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Timothy Potter 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Anshum,
>>
>> I think we should also consider SOLR-8908 for 5.5.1, it's a pretty bad
>> leak esp. in envs that make lots of reloads due to schema edits. I
>> have a fix up, but am struggling to create a test for it atm.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Bram Van Dam 
>> wrote:
>> > On 11/04/16 19:04, Ishan Chattopadhyaya wrote:
>> >> I'd like someone to backport the following:
>> >> SOLR-8838
>> >> SOLR-8082
>> >> SOLR-8865
>> >
>> > Can we please add SOLR-8145 to that list? It fixes an incorrect
>> > oom_killer argument in the startupt script and a Jetty warning on
>> > startup.
>> >
>> > Please let me know if you'd like me to help test 5.5.1.
>> >
>> >  - Bram
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>> >
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-13 Thread Anshum Gupta

Go for it Tim! Let us try to get it in with the test and if you need a bit
of time for that, let me know.

If you think getting the test would take a lot of time, let us at least get
the fix in 5.5.1 if you are confident about the fix.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Timothy Potter 
wrote:

> Hi Anshum,
>
> I think we should also consider SOLR-8908 for 5.5.1, it's a pretty bad
> leak esp. in envs that make lots of reloads due to schema edits. I
> have a fix up, but am struggling to create a test for it atm.
>
> Tim
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Bram Van Dam 
> wrote:
> > On 11/04/16 19:04, Ishan Chattopadhyaya wrote:
> >> I'd like someone to backport the following:
> >> SOLR-8838
> >> SOLR-8082
> >> SOLR-8865
> >
> > Can we please add SOLR-8145 to that list? It fixes an incorrect
> > oom_killer argument in the startupt script and a Jetty warning on
> startup.
> >
> > Please let me know if you'd like me to help test 5.5.1.
> >
> >  - Bram
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-13 Thread Anshum Gupta

Can you please test it with 5.5.1 so someone could back port it. Thanks.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 4:55 AM, Bram Van Dam  wrote:

> On 11/04/16 19:04, Ishan Chattopadhyaya wrote:
> > I'd like someone to backport the following:
> > SOLR-8838
> > SOLR-8082
> > SOLR-8865
>
> Can we please add SOLR-8145 to that list? It fixes an incorrect
> oom_killer argument in the startupt script and a Jetty warning on startup.
>
> Please let me know if you'd like me to help test 5.5.1.
>
>  - Bram
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-13 Thread Timothy Potter

Hi Anshum,

I think we should also consider SOLR-8908 for 5.5.1, it's a pretty bad
leak esp. in envs that make lots of reloads due to schema edits. I
have a fix up, but am struggling to create a test for it atm.

Tim

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Bram Van Dam  wrote:
> On 11/04/16 19:04, Ishan Chattopadhyaya wrote:
>> I'd like someone to backport the following:
>> SOLR-8838
>> SOLR-8082
>> SOLR-8865
>
> Can we please add SOLR-8145 to that list? It fixes an incorrect
> oom_killer argument in the startupt script and a Jetty warning on startup.
>
> Please let me know if you'd like me to help test 5.5.1.
>
>  - Bram
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-13 Thread Bram Van Dam

On 11/04/16 19:04, Ishan Chattopadhyaya wrote:
> I'd like someone to backport the following:
> SOLR-8838
> SOLR-8082
> SOLR-8865

Can we please add SOLR-8145 to that list? It fixes an incorrect
oom_killer argument in the startupt script and a Jetty warning on startup.

Please let me know if you'd like me to help test 5.5.1.

 - Bram

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-11 Thread Anshum Gupta

Thanks Ishan. I'll take a look.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Anshum,
>
> I'd like someone to backport the following:
> SOLR-8838
> SOLR-8082
> SOLR-8865
>
> These are mentioned in the bug-fix section of 6.0, so I agree with Yonik
> that we should perhaps look at all of those changes.
> Thanks and regards,
> Ishan
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I would like to release 5.5.1, specially for to SOLR-8725.
>> >
>> > SOLR-8642 in 5.5 stops people from upgrading to 5.5 and a lot of users
>> have
>> > spoken about it on the mailing list and the JIRA.
>> >
>> > I would like to start the process towards the end of the coming week.
>>
>> At a minimum, we should prob look at the whole bug-fix section of 6.0
>>
>> -Yonik
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-11 Thread Anshum Gupta

I agree and that is on my list of things to do for the release.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to release 5.5.1, specially for to SOLR-8725.
> >
> > SOLR-8642 in 5.5 stops people from upgrading to 5.5 and a lot of users
> have
> > spoken about it on the mailing list and the JIRA.
> >
> > I would like to start the process towards the end of the coming week.
>
> At a minimum, we should prob look at the whole bug-fix section of 6.0
>
> -Yonik
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Anshum Gupta

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-11 Thread David Smiley

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:15 PM Yonik Seeley  wrote:

> FWIW I backported to the 5x branch (and then to 55 branch from there)
> given that we could have a 5.6 release in the future.
>

Good; I think we should *always* do that when back-porting.  Not doing it
could really bite us by accident.
-- 
Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-11 Thread Yonik Seeley

I just backported SOLR-8155... may do more when I get time, but taxes
and other stuff are waiting for me right now.
FWIW I backported to the 5x branch (and then to 55 branch from there)
given that we could have a 5.6 release in the future.

-Yonik


On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya
 wrote:
> Hi Anshum,
>
> I'd like someone to backport the following:
> SOLR-8838
> SOLR-8082
> SOLR-8865
>
> These are mentioned in the bug-fix section of 6.0, so I agree with Yonik
> that we should perhaps look at all of those changes.
> Thanks and regards,
> Ishan
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Anshum Gupta 
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I would like to release 5.5.1, specially for to SOLR-8725.
>> >
>> > SOLR-8642 in 5.5 stops people from upgrading to 5.5 and a lot of users
>> > have
>> > spoken about it on the mailing list and the JIRA.
>> >
>> > I would like to start the process towards the end of the coming week.
>>
>> At a minimum, we should prob look at the whole bug-fix section of 6.0
>>
>> -Yonik
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-11 Thread Ishan Chattopadhyaya

Hi Anshum,

I'd like someone to backport the following:
SOLR-8838
SOLR-8082
SOLR-8865

These are mentioned in the bug-fix section of 6.0, so I agree with Yonik
that we should perhaps look at all of those changes.
Thanks and regards,
Ishan


On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to release 5.5.1, specially for to SOLR-8725.
> >
> > SOLR-8642 in 5.5 stops people from upgrading to 5.5 and a lot of users
> have
> > spoken about it on the mailing list and the JIRA.
> >
> > I would like to start the process towards the end of the coming week.
>
> At a minimum, we should prob look at the whole bug-fix section of 6.0
>
> -Yonik
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-11 Thread Yonik Seeley

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Anshum Gupta  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to release 5.5.1, specially for to SOLR-8725.
>
> SOLR-8642 in 5.5 stops people from upgrading to 5.5 and a lot of users have
> spoken about it on the mailing list and the JIRA.
>
> I would like to start the process towards the end of the coming week.

At a minimum, we should prob look at the whole bug-fix section of 6.0

-Yonik

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-11 Thread Adrien Grand

FYI I backported https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7112 to
branch_5_5.

Le dim. 10 avr. 2016 à 20:06, Shai Erera  a écrit :

> +1, this (SOLR-8642) has bitten us already and had to revert back to 5.4.x.
>
> Shai
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 8:00 PM Anshum Gupta 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to release 5.5.1, specially for to SOLR-8725.
>>
>> SOLR-8642 in 5.5 stops people from upgrading to 5.5 and a lot of users
>> have spoken about it on the mailing list and the JIRA.
>>
>> I would like to start the process towards the end of the coming week.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta
>>
>

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-10 Thread Shai Erera

+1, this (SOLR-8642) has bitten us already and had to revert back to 5.4.x.

Shai

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 8:00 PM Anshum Gupta  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to release 5.5.1, specially for to SOLR-8725.
>
> SOLR-8642 in 5.5 stops people from upgrading to 5.5 and a lot of users
> have spoken about it on the mailing list and the JIRA.
>
> I would like to start the process towards the end of the coming week.
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>

Lucene/Solr 5.5.1

2016-04-10 Thread Anshum Gupta

Hi,

I would like to release 5.5.1, specially for to SOLR-8725.

SOLR-8642 in 5.5 stops people from upgrading to 5.5 and a lot of users have
spoken about it on the mailing list and the JIRA.

I would like to start the process towards the end of the coming week.


-- 
Anshum Gupta

78 matches

Mail list logo