Re: Welcome Michael Gibney as Lucene committer
Congratulations and welcome, Michael! Tomoko 2021年10月13日(水) 1:44 Joel Bernstein : > > Welcome, Michael! > > Joel Bernstein > http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ > > > On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 2:41 AM Atri Sharma wrote: >> >> Welcome, Michael! >> >> On Thu, 7 Oct 2021, 23:29 Michael Sokolov, wrote: >>> >>> Welcome, Michael! >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:34 AM Dawid Weiss wrote: >>> > >>> > Hello everyone! >>> > >>> > Please welcome Michael Gibney as the latest Lucene committer. Michael >>> > - it's a tradition for you to introduce yourself, even if we've been >>> > seeing you for quite a while! :) >>> > >>> > Dawid >>> > >>> > - >>> > 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 >>> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 8.10.1 RC1
Please vote for release candidate 1 for Lucene/Solr 8.10.1 The artifacts can be downloaded from: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-8.10.1-RC1-rev2f24e6a49d48a032df1f12e146612f59141727a9 You can run the smoke tester directly with this command: python3 -u dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py \ https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-8.10.1-RC1-rev2f24e6a49d48a032df1f12e146612f59141727a9 The vote will be open for at least 72 hours i.e. until 2021-10-15 23:00 UTC. [ ] +1 approve [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) Here is my +1 : SUCCESS! [1:07:19.906103]
Re: Welcome Michael Gibney as Lucene committer
Welcome, Michael! Joel Bernstein http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 2:41 AM Atri Sharma wrote: > Welcome, Michael! > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2021, 23:29 Michael Sokolov, wrote: > >> Welcome, Michael! >> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:34 AM Dawid Weiss wrote: >> > >> > Hello everyone! >> > >> > Please welcome Michael Gibney as the latest Lucene committer. Michael >> > - it's a tradition for you to introduce yourself, even if we've been >> > seeing you for quite a while! :) >> > >> > Dawid >> > >> > - >> > 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: Simplify the release artifacts
> In short: A targz file is just easier to "manually" review. This is off-topic: I'm curious about if some part of the manual review can be done at daily automated routines (tests, precommit checks, etc.). I'm not against having a binary distribution for pre-release review or other purposes (as it used to be done) at all; I just hope we could reduce the manual effort and worries for every release... Tomoko 2021年10月12日(火) 19:32 Dawid Weiss : > > > Why I am telling this: I'd like to test the "official" to-be-released JAR > > files with their hashes as seen and uploaded to ASF servers, so mavenLocal > > is not my first preference. > > Correct - the same build (from the same git revision) will not result > in identical JARs. This can be done but you'll pay the price -- you'd > have to remove all of the variable jar manifest entries (user, > compiler, etc.). This is valuable, I think, so don't consider this a > priority. > > D. > > - > 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: Simplify the release artifacts
> Why I am telling this: I'd like to test the "official" to-be-released JAR > files with their hashes as seen and uploaded to ASF servers, so mavenLocal is > not my first preference. Correct - the same build (from the same git revision) will not result in identical JARs. This can be done but you'll pay the price -- you'd have to remove all of the variable jar manifest entries (user, compiler, etc.). This is valuable, I think, so don't consider this a priority. D. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
RE: Simplify the release artifacts
Hi, > I'm fine with just Lucene binaries, signed JARs and checksums + > pre-rendered documentation for convenience purposes. Sure, thanks. > > Without a binary release it's also harder to do a quick test with the JAR > > files, > because they are not yet on Maven Central, > > You can install the artifacts locally (~/.m2 - gradlew mavenToLocal) > or just assemble them in a release build folder (the pending patch). I > think this should be enough for experiments? That's what I mentioned in my mail, just a bit different (using remote repo): The artifacts are also on the dist.apache.or server in subdirectory ".../VERSION/lucene/maven" and "solr/maven" (at least currently for 8.x). Those repos can be used also as remote repository. But as the URL is a bit complex you need a lot of copypaste to setup a local project. And with current 8.x process it is even more complicated because Solr and Lucene have separate meven trees, so you need to add 2 repositories. I often do this to check my Solr Plugins of my customers . I have a gist somewhere to copypaste the correct config options for gradle/maven projects. Why I am telling this: I'd like to test the "official" to-be-released JAR files with their hashes as seen and uploaded to ASF servers, so mavenLocal is not my first preference. I would be fine if local JARs would have same hashes, but this does not work due to timestamps or operating system and java compiler differences inside. It could be that the release manager used a buggy JDK with broken javac . I the past I also checked the MR-JARs manually in the 8.x branch to make sure it looks fine. In short: A targz file is just easier to "manually" review. Uwe > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:42 AM Uwe Schindler wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I full agree with most of the things here. Now that Solr is no longer part > > of > Lucene, I also see no reason to have all dependencies and JAR artifacts in a > TAR > file! > > > > On the other hand, binary artifacts makes reviewing the artifacts easier > during a release. I am one of the persons that not only instructs policeman > Jenkins to run the smoketester, I also download the artifacts and review JAR > files (META-INF, completeness) and Javadocs. If we no longer have a binary > release, we must also publish the javadocs of the release on the nightlies > server > for quick review! Maybe we can push the javadocs/documentation to apache > servers before release (into a different directory name on the ASF webserver > subversion server, when the release is done just "svn mv"). > > > > Without a binary release it's also harder to do a quick test with the JAR > > files, > because they are not yet on Maven Central, so for testing one would need to > make a maven project with a remote repository pointing to the staging are. > There are workarounds for that, maybe we should make a script in the > smoketester utilities that quickly sets up a maven project with the staging > repository so you can drop in your "tryout code" and do a quick check. > > > > So I am not fully happy to completely throw away binary artifacts. > > Uwe > > > > - > > Uwe Schindler > > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > > https://www.thetaphi.de > > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Robert Muir > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 2:27 AM > > > To: dev@lucene.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: Simplify the release artifacts > > > > > > Well there's definitely a good reason to stop publishing convenience > > > binaries: they aren't required. > > > > > > Lucene is a library. > > > > > > I think it makes sense to publish convenience binaries for the luke > > > App, that's it. > > > > > > Otherwise, we should publish just source code, that's all that is > > > required. > > > Library users want to use build systems like gradle and maven, so we > > > should put the classfiles there too. > > > > > > But there's zero requirement to make zips and tgzs of .class files and > > > 3rd party libs up on the website. zero. and if no one is using them, > > > we should stop doing it. > > > > > > Instead i'd rather focus on testing of what counts (e.g. do those jar > > > files going to maven have included javadocs so it works well in the > > > IDE?). These aspects are more important for a library. > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 8:21 PM Jan Høydahl > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 to all suggestions. > > > > > > > > ASF has a release policy (https://www.apache.org/legal/release- > > > policy.html#release-distribution) and artifacts must be uploaded to the > mirrors. > > > > There is also a release distribution policy > (https://infra.apache.org/release- > > > distribution.html#download-links) that says > > > > > > > >"The website documentation for any Apache product must provide > public > > > download links where interested parties may obtain current official source > > > releases and accompanying cryptographic files." > > > > > > > > So I see no reason to
Re: Simplify the release artifacts
I'm fine with just Lucene binaries, signed JARs and checksums + pre-rendered documentation for convenience purposes. > Without a binary release it's also harder to do a quick test with the JAR > files, because they are not yet on Maven Central, You can install the artifacts locally (~/.m2 - gradlew mavenToLocal) or just assemble them in a release build folder (the pending patch). I think this should be enough for experiments? D. On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:42 AM Uwe Schindler wrote: > > Hi, > > I full agree with most of the things here. Now that Solr is no longer part of > Lucene, I also see no reason to have all dependencies and JAR artifacts in a > TAR file! > > On the other hand, binary artifacts makes reviewing the artifacts easier > during a release. I am one of the persons that not only instructs policeman > Jenkins to run the smoketester, I also download the artifacts and review JAR > files (META-INF, completeness) and Javadocs. If we no longer have a binary > release, we must also publish the javadocs of the release on the nightlies > server for quick review! Maybe we can push the javadocs/documentation to > apache servers before release (into a different directory name on the ASF > webserver subversion server, when the release is done just "svn mv"). > > Without a binary release it's also harder to do a quick test with the JAR > files, because they are not yet on Maven Central, so for testing one would > need to make a maven project with a remote repository pointing to the staging > are. There are workarounds for that, maybe we should make a script in the > smoketester utilities that quickly sets up a maven project with the staging > repository so you can drop in your "tryout code" and do a quick check. > > So I am not fully happy to completely throw away binary artifacts. > Uwe > > - > Uwe Schindler > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > https://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > -Original Message- > > From: Robert Muir > > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 2:27 AM > > To: dev@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Simplify the release artifacts > > > > Well there's definitely a good reason to stop publishing convenience > > binaries: they aren't required. > > > > Lucene is a library. > > > > I think it makes sense to publish convenience binaries for the luke > > App, that's it. > > > > Otherwise, we should publish just source code, that's all that is required. > > Library users want to use build systems like gradle and maven, so we > > should put the classfiles there too. > > > > But there's zero requirement to make zips and tgzs of .class files and > > 3rd party libs up on the website. zero. and if no one is using them, > > we should stop doing it. > > > > Instead i'd rather focus on testing of what counts (e.g. do those jar > > files going to maven have included javadocs so it works well in the > > IDE?). These aspects are more important for a library. > > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 8:21 PM Jan Høydahl > > wrote: > > > > > > +1 to all suggestions. > > > > > > ASF has a release policy (https://www.apache.org/legal/release- > > policy.html#release-distribution) and artifacts must be uploaded to the > > mirrors. > > > There is also a release distribution policy > > > (https://infra.apache.org/release- > > distribution.html#download-links) that says > > > > > >"The website documentation for any Apache product must provide public > > download links where interested parties may obtain current official source > > releases and accompanying cryptographic files." > > > > > > So I see no reason to stop publishing binary convenience releases in the > > apache mirrors, although few will use that channel. > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > 12. okt. 2021 kl. 01:55 skrev Tomoko Uchida > > : > > > > > > For what it's worth, I did a little survey on how other > > > library/sdk/framework projects distribute their artifacts other than > > > Maven repositories. > > > > > > - Log4j distributes tgz and zip artifacts via the "Download" page. > > > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/download.html > > > > > > - JavaFX distributes only zip artifacts via the "Download" page > > > https://gluonhq.com/products/javafx/ > > > > > > - Jersey has a "Download" page but it is actually a facade to Maven > > > Central. > > > https://eclipse-ee4j.github.io/jersey/download.html > > > > > > - JUnit5 has no "download" page > > > https://junit.org/junit5/ > > > > > > - Spring has no "download" page (as far as I know) > > > https://spring.io/projects/spring-framework > > > > > > - Jackson has no "download" page (github repo also serves as their > > > documentation). > > > https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-core > > > > > > They are only small examples, but it seems to me that recent or > > > recently renewed projects would tend to have no explicit "download" > > > page at all. (?) > > > I'm not sure there are any ASF rules or policies about that. > > > > > > Tomoko > > > > > > 2021年10月11日(月)
RE: Simplify the release artifacts
Hi, I full agree with most of the things here. Now that Solr is no longer part of Lucene, I also see no reason to have all dependencies and JAR artifacts in a TAR file! On the other hand, binary artifacts makes reviewing the artifacts easier during a release. I am one of the persons that not only instructs policeman Jenkins to run the smoketester, I also download the artifacts and review JAR files (META-INF, completeness) and Javadocs. If we no longer have a binary release, we must also publish the javadocs of the release on the nightlies server for quick review! Maybe we can push the javadocs/documentation to apache servers before release (into a different directory name on the ASF webserver subversion server, when the release is done just "svn mv"). Without a binary release it's also harder to do a quick test with the JAR files, because they are not yet on Maven Central, so for testing one would need to make a maven project with a remote repository pointing to the staging are. There are workarounds for that, maybe we should make a script in the smoketester utilities that quickly sets up a maven project with the staging repository so you can drop in your "tryout code" and do a quick check. So I am not fully happy to completely throw away binary artifacts. Uwe - Uwe Schindler Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen https://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > -Original Message- > From: Robert Muir > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 2:27 AM > To: dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Simplify the release artifacts > > Well there's definitely a good reason to stop publishing convenience > binaries: they aren't required. > > Lucene is a library. > > I think it makes sense to publish convenience binaries for the luke > App, that's it. > > Otherwise, we should publish just source code, that's all that is required. > Library users want to use build systems like gradle and maven, so we > should put the classfiles there too. > > But there's zero requirement to make zips and tgzs of .class files and > 3rd party libs up on the website. zero. and if no one is using them, > we should stop doing it. > > Instead i'd rather focus on testing of what counts (e.g. do those jar > files going to maven have included javadocs so it works well in the > IDE?). These aspects are more important for a library. > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 8:21 PM Jan Høydahl > wrote: > > > > +1 to all suggestions. > > > > ASF has a release policy (https://www.apache.org/legal/release- > policy.html#release-distribution) and artifacts must be uploaded to the > mirrors. > > There is also a release distribution policy > > (https://infra.apache.org/release- > distribution.html#download-links) that says > > > >"The website documentation for any Apache product must provide public > download links where interested parties may obtain current official source > releases and accompanying cryptographic files." > > > > So I see no reason to stop publishing binary convenience releases in the > apache mirrors, although few will use that channel. > > > > Jan > > > > 12. okt. 2021 kl. 01:55 skrev Tomoko Uchida > : > > > > For what it's worth, I did a little survey on how other > > library/sdk/framework projects distribute their artifacts other than > > Maven repositories. > > > > - Log4j distributes tgz and zip artifacts via the "Download" page. > > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/download.html > > > > - JavaFX distributes only zip artifacts via the "Download" page > > https://gluonhq.com/products/javafx/ > > > > - Jersey has a "Download" page but it is actually a facade to Maven Central. > > https://eclipse-ee4j.github.io/jersey/download.html > > > > - JUnit5 has no "download" page > > https://junit.org/junit5/ > > > > - Spring has no "download" page (as far as I know) > > https://spring.io/projects/spring-framework > > > > - Jackson has no "download" page (github repo also serves as their > > documentation). > > https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-core > > > > They are only small examples, but it seems to me that recent or > > recently renewed projects would tend to have no explicit "download" > > page at all. (?) > > I'm not sure there are any ASF rules or policies about that. > > > > Tomoko > > > > 2021年10月11日(月) 21:59 Robert Muir : > > > > > > +1 overall, comments inline. > > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 7:48 AM Dawid Weiss > wrote: > > > > > > Hi. > > > > These are the thoughts that occurred to me while rewriting the > > packaging in the build system. I think they're worth the discussion > > because they could limit the size of the published artifacts as well > > as their perceptive quality. > > > > 1. Who is going to use the lib/*.jar files we distribute in binary > > releases? I don't think they are useful for anything. The dependency > > information for modules is stored in maven POMs (and can be easily > > written to text files, if it's really something people are dying to > > preserve). > > > > > > +1 > > > >
Re: Simplify the release artifacts
I remember the issue and linked to it, Tomoko. Luke distribution should be done as part of the binary artifacts refactoring - these are connected issues, I think. Dawid On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:07 AM Tomoko Uchida wrote: > > If a dedicated issue for the stand-alone luke distribution is needed, > I think this is the one: LUCENE-9978. I have not worked on this yet, > since I thought it would be better to wait until the upcoming release > is completed. > I'm ready to start working on this, but it could/should be delegated > to another issue with a much broader perspective. > > Thanks, > Tomoko > > 2021年10月12日(火) 16:19 Dawid Weiss : > > > > > Thank you for the discussion. I think it'll be easier to take this > > forward if presented with a concrete example of what a "binary" > > release can look like, what Luke distribution is, etc. > > > > Let's start by completing the updates to how artifacts are assembled > > and making the smoke tester work with these - this should be a low > > hanging fruit opening > > the possibility of a release. I would love to simplify the binary > > artifacts but it can come as a logical next step once we have the > > release infrastructure working > > on the current main. > > > > Dawid > > > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 2:27 AM Robert Muir wrote: > > > > > > Well there's definitely a good reason to stop publishing convenience > > > binaries: they aren't required. > > > > > > Lucene is a library. > > > > > > I think it makes sense to publish convenience binaries for the luke > > > App, that's it. > > > > > > Otherwise, we should publish just source code, that's all that is > > > required. > > > Library users want to use build systems like gradle and maven, so we > > > should put the classfiles there too. > > > > > > But there's zero requirement to make zips and tgzs of .class files and > > > 3rd party libs up on the website. zero. and if no one is using them, > > > we should stop doing it. > > > > > > Instead i'd rather focus on testing of what counts (e.g. do those jar > > > files going to maven have included javadocs so it works well in the > > > IDE?). These aspects are more important for a library. > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 8:21 PM Jan Høydahl wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 to all suggestions. > > > > > > > > ASF has a release policy > > > > (https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-distribution) > > > > and artifacts must be uploaded to the mirrors. > > > > There is also a release distribution policy > > > > (https://infra.apache.org/release-distribution.html#download-links) > > > > that says > > > > > > > >"The website documentation for any Apache product must provide > > > > public download links where interested parties may obtain current > > > > official source releases and accompanying cryptographic files." > > > > > > > > So I see no reason to stop publishing binary convenience releases in > > > > the apache mirrors, although few will use that channel. > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > 12. okt. 2021 kl. 01:55 skrev Tomoko Uchida > > > > : > > > > > > > > For what it's worth, I did a little survey on how other > > > > library/sdk/framework projects distribute their artifacts other than > > > > Maven repositories. > > > > > > > > - Log4j distributes tgz and zip artifacts via the "Download" page. > > > > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/download.html > > > > > > > > - JavaFX distributes only zip artifacts via the "Download" page > > > > https://gluonhq.com/products/javafx/ > > > > > > > > - Jersey has a "Download" page but it is actually a facade to Maven > > > > Central. > > > > https://eclipse-ee4j.github.io/jersey/download.html > > > > > > > > - JUnit5 has no "download" page > > > > https://junit.org/junit5/ > > > > > > > > - Spring has no "download" page (as far as I know) > > > > https://spring.io/projects/spring-framework > > > > > > > > - Jackson has no "download" page (github repo also serves as their > > > > documentation). > > > > https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-core > > > > > > > > They are only small examples, but it seems to me that recent or > > > > recently renewed projects would tend to have no explicit "download" > > > > page at all. (?) > > > > I'm not sure there are any ASF rules or policies about that. > > > > > > > > Tomoko > > > > > > > > 2021年10月11日(月) 21:59 Robert Muir : > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 overall, comments inline. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 7:48 AM Dawid Weiss > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > > > These are the thoughts that occurred to me while rewriting the > > > > packaging in the build system. I think they're worth the discussion > > > > because they could limit the size of the published artifacts as well > > > > as their perceptive quality. > > > > > > > > 1. Who is going to use the lib/*.jar files we distribute in binary > > > > releases? I don't think they are useful for anything. The dependency > > > > information for modules is stored in maven POMs
Re: Simplify the release artifacts
If a dedicated issue for the stand-alone luke distribution is needed, I think this is the one: LUCENE-9978. I have not worked on this yet, since I thought it would be better to wait until the upcoming release is completed. I'm ready to start working on this, but it could/should be delegated to another issue with a much broader perspective. Thanks, Tomoko 2021年10月12日(火) 16:19 Dawid Weiss : > > Thank you for the discussion. I think it'll be easier to take this > forward if presented with a concrete example of what a "binary" > release can look like, what Luke distribution is, etc. > > Let's start by completing the updates to how artifacts are assembled > and making the smoke tester work with these - this should be a low > hanging fruit opening > the possibility of a release. I would love to simplify the binary > artifacts but it can come as a logical next step once we have the > release infrastructure working > on the current main. > > Dawid > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 2:27 AM Robert Muir wrote: > > > > Well there's definitely a good reason to stop publishing convenience > > binaries: they aren't required. > > > > Lucene is a library. > > > > I think it makes sense to publish convenience binaries for the luke > > App, that's it. > > > > Otherwise, we should publish just source code, that's all that is required. > > Library users want to use build systems like gradle and maven, so we > > should put the classfiles there too. > > > > But there's zero requirement to make zips and tgzs of .class files and > > 3rd party libs up on the website. zero. and if no one is using them, > > we should stop doing it. > > > > Instead i'd rather focus on testing of what counts (e.g. do those jar > > files going to maven have included javadocs so it works well in the > > IDE?). These aspects are more important for a library. > > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 8:21 PM Jan Høydahl wrote: > > > > > > +1 to all suggestions. > > > > > > ASF has a release policy > > > (https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-distribution) > > > and artifacts must be uploaded to the mirrors. > > > There is also a release distribution policy > > > (https://infra.apache.org/release-distribution.html#download-links) that > > > says > > > > > >"The website documentation for any Apache product must provide public > > > download links where interested parties may obtain current official > > > source releases and accompanying cryptographic files." > > > > > > So I see no reason to stop publishing binary convenience releases in the > > > apache mirrors, although few will use that channel. > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > 12. okt. 2021 kl. 01:55 skrev Tomoko Uchida > > > : > > > > > > For what it's worth, I did a little survey on how other > > > library/sdk/framework projects distribute their artifacts other than > > > Maven repositories. > > > > > > - Log4j distributes tgz and zip artifacts via the "Download" page. > > > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/download.html > > > > > > - JavaFX distributes only zip artifacts via the "Download" page > > > https://gluonhq.com/products/javafx/ > > > > > > - Jersey has a "Download" page but it is actually a facade to Maven > > > Central. > > > https://eclipse-ee4j.github.io/jersey/download.html > > > > > > - JUnit5 has no "download" page > > > https://junit.org/junit5/ > > > > > > - Spring has no "download" page (as far as I know) > > > https://spring.io/projects/spring-framework > > > > > > - Jackson has no "download" page (github repo also serves as their > > > documentation). > > > https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-core > > > > > > They are only small examples, but it seems to me that recent or > > > recently renewed projects would tend to have no explicit "download" > > > page at all. (?) > > > I'm not sure there are any ASF rules or policies about that. > > > > > > Tomoko > > > > > > 2021年10月11日(月) 21:59 Robert Muir : > > > > > > > > > +1 overall, comments inline. > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 7:48 AM Dawid Weiss wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > These are the thoughts that occurred to me while rewriting the > > > packaging in the build system. I think they're worth the discussion > > > because they could limit the size of the published artifacts as well > > > as their perceptive quality. > > > > > > 1. Who is going to use the lib/*.jar files we distribute in binary > > > releases? I don't think they are useful for anything. The dependency > > > information for modules is stored in maven POMs (and can be easily > > > written to text files, if it's really something people are dying to > > > preserve). > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > I don't think redistributing those JARs makes any sense other than to > > > make Luke work... What I would suggest is to remove third-party JARs > > > entirely from the binary distribution and have a separate binary > > > artifact with a fully functional top-level Luke application. > > > Alternatively, move those third-party JARs to
Re: Simplify the release artifacts
Thank you for the discussion. I think it'll be easier to take this forward if presented with a concrete example of what a "binary" release can look like, what Luke distribution is, etc. Let's start by completing the updates to how artifacts are assembled and making the smoke tester work with these - this should be a low hanging fruit opening the possibility of a release. I would love to simplify the binary artifacts but it can come as a logical next step once we have the release infrastructure working on the current main. Dawid On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 2:27 AM Robert Muir wrote: > > Well there's definitely a good reason to stop publishing convenience > binaries: they aren't required. > > Lucene is a library. > > I think it makes sense to publish convenience binaries for the luke > App, that's it. > > Otherwise, we should publish just source code, that's all that is required. > Library users want to use build systems like gradle and maven, so we > should put the classfiles there too. > > But there's zero requirement to make zips and tgzs of .class files and > 3rd party libs up on the website. zero. and if no one is using them, > we should stop doing it. > > Instead i'd rather focus on testing of what counts (e.g. do those jar > files going to maven have included javadocs so it works well in the > IDE?). These aspects are more important for a library. > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 8:21 PM Jan Høydahl wrote: > > > > +1 to all suggestions. > > > > ASF has a release policy > > (https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-distribution) and > > artifacts must be uploaded to the mirrors. > > There is also a release distribution policy > > (https://infra.apache.org/release-distribution.html#download-links) that > > says > > > >"The website documentation for any Apache product must provide public > > download links where interested parties may obtain current official source > > releases and accompanying cryptographic files." > > > > So I see no reason to stop publishing binary convenience releases in the > > apache mirrors, although few will use that channel. > > > > Jan > > > > 12. okt. 2021 kl. 01:55 skrev Tomoko Uchida : > > > > For what it's worth, I did a little survey on how other > > library/sdk/framework projects distribute their artifacts other than > > Maven repositories. > > > > - Log4j distributes tgz and zip artifacts via the "Download" page. > > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/download.html > > > > - JavaFX distributes only zip artifacts via the "Download" page > > https://gluonhq.com/products/javafx/ > > > > - Jersey has a "Download" page but it is actually a facade to Maven Central. > > https://eclipse-ee4j.github.io/jersey/download.html > > > > - JUnit5 has no "download" page > > https://junit.org/junit5/ > > > > - Spring has no "download" page (as far as I know) > > https://spring.io/projects/spring-framework > > > > - Jackson has no "download" page (github repo also serves as their > > documentation). > > https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-core > > > > They are only small examples, but it seems to me that recent or > > recently renewed projects would tend to have no explicit "download" > > page at all. (?) > > I'm not sure there are any ASF rules or policies about that. > > > > Tomoko > > > > 2021年10月11日(月) 21:59 Robert Muir : > > > > > > +1 overall, comments inline. > > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 7:48 AM Dawid Weiss wrote: > > > > > > Hi. > > > > These are the thoughts that occurred to me while rewriting the > > packaging in the build system. I think they're worth the discussion > > because they could limit the size of the published artifacts as well > > as their perceptive quality. > > > > 1. Who is going to use the lib/*.jar files we distribute in binary > > releases? I don't think they are useful for anything. The dependency > > information for modules is stored in maven POMs (and can be easily > > written to text files, if it's really something people are dying to > > preserve). > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > I don't think redistributing those JARs makes any sense other than to > > make Luke work... What I would suggest is to remove third-party JARs > > entirely from the binary distribution and have a separate binary > > artifact with a fully functional top-level Luke application. > > Alternatively, move those third-party JARs to the top-level > > /thirdparty folder and Luke can access them from there. > > > > > > +1, I think there is already an issue open to give luke its own > > "release artifact" > > > > > > 2. Some of the *.txt files both at the top-level and inside subfolders > > contain obsolete information. We should at least re-read these. My > > personal opinion is that some of the README.txt files inside modules > > have little practical use - their content should go inside the javadoc > > (package level, perhaps) and this should be the only source of > > documentation. > > > > > > +1, either nuke it, or fold it into javadoc, or at the very least > >
Re: How to run Lucene 9 tests in eclipse?
Hi Praveen, Have you seen this page on the wiki? https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DeveloperTips#DeveloperTips-TipstoconfigureIDEs By running `gradlew tasks`, you should see a section about IDE tasks that help with importing the project in Eclipse. For me running tests then works just like it does for any other Eclipse project. On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 7:42 AM Praveen Nishchal wrote: > Hi All, > > How can we run Lucene9 tests via eclipse? I am able to run all the tests > through the command line but not with eclipse. > > Please advise! > -- Adrien
