Re: Intent to backport OAK-8235

[Julian Reschke]

On 14.06.2019 16:08, Tommaso Teofili wrote:

thanks for the feedback Davide and Julian, in summary I share your same
concerns and therefore I don't have a good solution myself.
For now I've only backported it to the "safe" branches.
I'm thinking of backporting the previous upgrade to Solr 5.5.5 to branch
1.6, which would be JDK 1.7 compatible.

Regards,
Tommaso


+1

So, generalizing a bit: we do have quite a few dependencies, and
sometimes it's not possible to update them, because of:

- new Java requirements
- incompatible changes
- ...?

Thus we should be clear that although certain maintenance branches
support Java 6 and 7, users are encouraged to move to an Oak version
that is on a Java version that isn't already EOL'd.

Best regards, Julian

Re: Intent to backport OAK-8235

[Tommaso Teofili]

thanks for the feedback Davide and Julian, in summary I share your same
concerns and therefore I don't have a good solution myself.
For now I've only backported it to the "safe" branches.
I'm thinking of backporting the previous upgrade to Solr 5.5.5 to branch
1.6, which would be JDK 1.7 compatible.

Regards,
Tommaso

Il giorno mar 11 giu 2019 alle ore 16:06 Julian Reschke <
julian.resc...@gmx.de> ha scritto:

> On 11.06.2019 12:42, Davide Giannella wrote:
> > ...
> > -1 on the additional branch. It will be yet one more branch to maintain
> > that will go very easily out of sync from the "official" 1.6.
> >
> > The only way to solve this is to increase the JDK compatibility. However
> > we have to account for consumer projects and their JDK compatibility.
> > They may have set JDK7 and cannot easily update JDK. Which in turns will
> > make any future 1.6 releases not suitable for the product.
> >
> > Other solution is to NOT backport the change as it is. We live with the
> > bugs in that area and produce some statement on the lines of: if you use
> > solr, you HAVE to upgrade to latest and greatest Oak release. Or at
> > lease 1.10.x.
> >
> > Or we manage to backport the security fixes in solr in a way that is JVM
> > compatible.
> >
> > Unfortunately I don't have a real solution.
>
> +1 on the summary...
>
>

Re: Intent to backport OAK-8235

[Julian Reschke]

On 11.06.2019 12:42, Davide Giannella wrote:

...
-1 on the additional branch. It will be yet one more branch to maintain
that will go very easily out of sync from the "official" 1.6.

The only way to solve this is to increase the JDK compatibility. However
we have to account for consumer projects and their JDK compatibility.
They may have set JDK7 and cannot easily update JDK. Which in turns will
make any future 1.6 releases not suitable for the product.

Other solution is to NOT backport the change as it is. We live with the
bugs in that area and produce some statement on the lines of: if you use
solr, you HAVE to upgrade to latest and greatest Oak release. Or at
lease 1.10.x.

Or we manage to backport the security fixes in solr in a way that is JVM
compatible.

Unfortunately I don't have a real solution.


+1 on the summary...

Intent to backport OAK-8235

[Tommaso Teofili]

Hi all,

I'd like to backport OAK-8235
 to branch 1.10, 1.8 and
1.6.

For branch 1.10 and 1.8 everything should be just fine, however for 1.6 we
had set our java compatibility to JDK 1.7, however Solr 6.6.6 requires at
least JDK 1.8.
In most cases I simply wouldn't backport this, however Solr 6.6.x has some
security fixes that would be important to have for anyone using Solr.

I would create a branch of branch 1.6 for OAK-8235
 (e.g. 1.6-oak-8235) where
I would backport such changes and set the JDK compatibility version to 1.8.
The question then comes for releases, I don't think we would be willing to
release such "intermediate" branches.

What do you think?
Any other ideas on how to solve it ?

Regards,
Tommaso