Re: 7.0 Release Update

> >> - >> >> Uwe Schindler >> >> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen >> >> http://www.thetaphi.de >> >> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de >> >> >> >> *From:* Anshum Gupta [mailto:ans...@anshumgupta.net] >> *Sent:* Mo

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Uwe > > > > - > > Uwe Schindler > > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > > http://www.thetaphi.de > > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > > *From:* Anshum Gupta [mailto:ans...@anshumgupta.net] > *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 3:31 AM > *To:* dev@lucene.apache.

RE: 7.0 Release Update

, D-28357 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de <http://www.thetaphi.de/> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de From: Anshum Gupta [mailto:ans...@anshumgupta.net] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:31 AM To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 7.0 Release Update Let's not commit more stuff to 7.0, unless it's

RE: 7.0 Release Update

, D-28357 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de <http://www.thetaphi.de/> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de From: Anshum Gupta [mailto:ans...@anshumgupta.net] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:31 AM To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 7.0 Release Update Let's not commit more stuff to 7.0, unless it's

Re: 7.0 Release Update

There is a bug ishan has opened SOLR-11268: AtomicUpdateProcessor complains missing UpdateLog I have already talked to Anshum about it On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Anshum Gupta wrote: > Let's not commit more stuff to 7.0, unless it's a blocker as it gets hard to >

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Let's not commit more stuff to 7.0, unless it's a blocker as it gets hard to track. At this time, the only commits that would be going in to 7.0 are the ones that Varun spoke to me about back porting. Once that is done, I'll cut an RC (most likely tomorrow). In the meanwhile, I'll work on the

Re: 7.0 Release Update

I've added SOLR-11183 to the release branch. Please let me know if someone has any concerns. Thanks, Ishan On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11262 > I don't know if it has implications for 7.0 or not. >

Re: 7.0 Release Update

I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11262 I don't know if it has implications for 7.0 or not. >From the issue: """This means that any code using PushWriter (via MapWriter or IteratorWriter) will be broken if one tries to use XML response format. This may easily go unnoticed if one

Re: 7.0 Release Update

sorry for the last minute notice. I need to fix the folowing as well. It may take a few hours https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11239 On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Andrzej Białecki wrote: > Then, if I may be so bold, I’d like to slip in SOLR-11235,

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Then, if I may be so bold, I’d like to slip in SOLR-11235, which is a simple AlreadyClosedException prevention fix. Patch is ready, tests are passing. > On 14 Aug 2017, at 19:17, Anshum Gupta wrote: > > Thanks Ab. > > I'll cut an RC on Wednesday, so that both, I get

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Thanks Ab. I'll cut an RC on Wednesday, so that both, I get the time, and also that the tests get some time on Jenkins. Anshum On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:29 AM Andrzej Białecki < andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I’ve committed the fix for SOLR-11221 to branch_7_0 (and branch_7x

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Hi, I’ve committed the fix for SOLR-11221 to branch_7_0 (and branch_7x and master). > On 12 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Andrzej Białecki > wrote: > > Hi Anshum, > > The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required larger > changes than I thought, so

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Thanks Ab, Let's get this in, and give it a couple of days on Jenkins (or get a BeastIt report from Mark). I'm +1 on releasing with this, and actually wouldn't want to release without the fix. Anshum On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:20 PM Andrzej Białecki < andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> wrote: >

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Hi Anshum, The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required larger changes than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that is not so well tested… I added a test that used to fail without this change, and manual testing confirms that metrics are now correctly

Re: 7.0 Release Update

bq. Thanks for the report Mark! I hope to start doing this for all the releases and keep that info around a while so that we can make a simple comparison release to release on top of like a regularly weekly report. - Mark On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:59 PM Anshum Gupta

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Thanks for the report Mark! and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed. Anshum On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller wrote: > Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken. > > Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch: >

Re: 7.0 Release Update

I'll do a report for Lucene as well before long by the way. Have not made a config for it just yet. - Mark On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:49 PM Mark Miller wrote: > Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken. > > Here is a 30 run test report for the

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken. Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch: http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811 - Mark On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe wrote: > Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known critical bug. > On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta wrote: > > Hi Ab, > > How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait, depending > upon the impact, and the time required to fix

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Hi Ab, How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait, depending upon the impact, and the time required to fix it. Anshum On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki < andrzej.biale...@lucidworks.com> wrote: > I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX

Re: 7.0 Release Update

I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX monitoring. We could either release with “known issues” and then quickly do 7.0.1, or wait until it’s fixed. > On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller wrote: > > I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch

Re: 7.0 Release Update

I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so we can evaluate that for an rc as well. - Mark On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta wrote: > Good news! > > I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving > Jenkins a couple of days,

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Good news! I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means, after giving Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend to do this on Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which I hope shouldn't be the case. Anshum On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Thanks Steve, seems like we're really close. I'll be cutting an RC a couple of days after the last blocker gets resolved, just to give Jenkins some time. Anshum On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:44 PM Steve Rowe wrote: > Oh, SOLR-11183 is also a Blocker, I just put 7.0 as fixVersion

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Oh, SOLR-11183 is also a Blocker, I just put 7.0 as fixVersion so that it will show up on the 7.0 Blockers JIRA query. -- Steve www.lucidworks.com > On Aug 4, 2017, at 8:28 PM, Steve Rowe wrote: > > I’ve finished up addressing blockers. The only remaining one is SOLR-10939:

Re: 7.0 Release Update

I’ve finished up addressing blockers. The only remaining one is SOLR-10939: JoinQParser gives incorrect results with numeric PointsFields, which Yonik is working on. -- Steve www.lucidworks.com > On Jul 25, 2017, at 7:02 PM, Steve Rowe wrote: > > I worked through the list

Re: 7.0 Release Update

I worked through the list of issues with the "numeric-tries-to-points” label and marked those as 7.0 Blocker that seemed reasonable, on the assumption that we should at a minimum give clear error messages for points non-compatibility. If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments I’ve

Re: 7.0 Release Update

I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm. If someone else has a spare cycle and can take it up before I get to it, please do. -Anshum On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra Targett wrote: > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie* >

Re: 7.0 Release Update

I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803 (to mark all Trie* fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which Hoss was working on. As he noted last night, he is off for vacation for the next 2 weeks. Is anyone else available to work on it so 7.0 isn't stalled for 2+ more weeks? Now would also

Re: 7.0 Release Update

: So, my overall point is that if A) we agree that we want to deprecate : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want to hold up the 7.0 release until : that's done, it's more than just updating the example schemas if we : want to ensure a quality app for users. We still need to fix the tests : and also

Re: 7.0 Release Update

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Anshum Gupta wrote: > Thanks for wording it in a much better manner Cassandra. > > The 2 points from my discussion with Hoss/Steve yesterday, are just about > that. Changing the examples is just a part of what’s needed to *confidently* >

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Thanks for wording it in a much better manner Cassandra. The 2 points from my discussion with Hoss/Steve yesterday, are just about that. Changing the examples is just a part of what’s needed to *confidently* deprecate the Trie/Legacy Numeric fields. I intend to start helping out with the test,

Re: 7.0 Release Update

It's more than just SOLR-10760, actually. SOLR-10760 is just about updating the example schemas. No problem, easy to do, we could commit it today. But I think focusing on that issue obscures the larger situation. If we care about having a quality application, though, we need to address the other

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Here’s an update for 7.0 release. We are (rightfully) waiting for SOLR-10760 to be completed so that we could deprecate all Trie/LegacyNumeric based fields in 7.0. I discussed this with Hoss, and Steve Rowe, and here are the 2 things that Hoss highlighted that were not directly related for

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Thanks Steve. On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Anshum Gupta wrote: > Thanks Steve, and Cassandra. > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:29 AM Steve Rowe wrote: >> >> >> > On Jul 10, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Cassandra Targett >> > wrote: >> >

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Thanks Steve, and Cassandra. On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:29 AM Steve Rowe wrote: > > > On Jul 10, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Cassandra Targett > wrote: > > > > We also need Solr Ref Guide Jenkins jobs for 7.x and 7.0 - Steve Rowe > > maybe you could help with

Re: 7.0 Release Update

> On Jul 10, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Cassandra Targett wrote: > > We also need Solr Ref Guide Jenkins jobs for 7.x and 7.0 - Steve Rowe > maybe you could help with that? I created 7.x & 7.0 ref guide jobs by cloning the master job. > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Uwe

Re: 7.0 Release Update

we > should just focus on 7.0. > > > > Uwe > > > > - > > Uwe Schindler > > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > > http://www.thetaphi.de > > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > > From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de] > Sent: Tuesda

RE: 7.0 Release Update

uesday, July 4, 2017 12:32 AM To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 7.0 Release Update I can do both, if Steve is not faster than I am. Uwe Am 4. Juli 2017 00:10:16 MESZ schrieb Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net <mailto:ans...@anshumgupta.net> >: Thanks Uwe! Can you

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Anshum: I'm unclear about whether we should set a 6.7 label (no release planned at this point, although one wouldn't surprise me). Is there any use in setting one just to have a marker in place? Thanks, Erick On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > I can do

Re: 7.0 Release Update

I can do both, if Steve is not faster than I am. Uwe Am 4. Juli 2017 00:10:16 MESZ schrieb Anshum Gupta : >Thanks Uwe! > >Can you clarify if Jenkins = Policeman / Apache or both ? > >On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:03 PM Uwe Schindler wrote: > >> Thanks

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Thanks Uwe! Can you clarify if Jenkins = Policeman / Apache or both ? On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:03 PM Uwe Schindler wrote: > Thanks Anshum, > > I will setup the Jenkins jobs tomorrow! > > Uwe > > > Am 3. Juli 2017 21:22:46 MESZ schrieb Anshum Gupta : >> >>

Re: 7.0 Release Update

Thanks Anshum, I will setup the Jenkins jobs tomorrow! Uwe Am 3. Juli 2017 21:22:46 MESZ schrieb Anshum Gupta : >The following branches have been created off master, prior to bumping >up of the version: >* branch_7x >* branch_7_0 > >The versioon on master has been bumped to

7.0 Release Update

The following branches have been created off master, prior to bumping up of the version: * branch_7x * branch_7_0 The versioon on master has been bumped to 8, and all tests pass. Thanks to everyone (specially Adrien, and Uwe) :) for helping out with the back-compat stuff and being patient.