Mailing List Archive

8.6.3 Release
Hi all,

I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
of the bigger changes in 8.7

I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?

Best,

Jason

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
I’d like to fix & backport SOLR-14850 & SOLR-14835.

> On 23 Sep 2020, at 16:06, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
> of the bigger changes in 8.7
>
> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
>
> Best,
>
> Jason
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
+1

On Wed, 23 Sep, 2020, 8:23 pm Andrzej Bia?ecki, <ab@getopt.org> wrote:

> I’d like to fix & backport SOLR-14850 & SOLR-14835.
>
> > On 23 Sep 2020, at 16:06, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
> > of the bigger changes in 8.7
> >
> > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
> > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
I was planning on a branch cut on 30th September for 8.7 — do we want to
delay that?

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 19:37, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
>
> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
>
> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
>
> of the bigger changes in 8.7
>
>
>
> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
>
> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
>
> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
>
> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> --
Regards,

Atri
Apache Concerted
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
> do we want to delay that?

It wasn't my intention to delay 8.7. The releases will end up being
close together, but they're on different release lines so there's
nothing wrong with that necessarily. Unless there's something
inherent to the release process that makes it difficult to have two
in-flight simultaneously? (I haven't RM'd a release yet, so there may
well be. Though now that I think back I'm pretty sure other
committers have done this sort of thing before...)

Was there a particular reason you brought up delaying 8.7?

Jason


On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:11 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I was planning on a branch cut on 30th September for 8.7 — do we want to delay that?
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 19:37, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
>>
>> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
>>
>> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
>>
>> of the bigger changes in 8.7
>>
>>
>>
>> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
>>
>> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
>>
>> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
>>
>> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Atri
> Apache Concerted

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
I am not sure if two close releases are a good idea — would they not lead
to potential confusion amongst users?

In any case, I will defer to the opinion of committers.

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 23:46, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:

> > do we want to delay that?
>
>
>
> It wasn't my intention to delay 8.7. The releases will end up being
>
> close together, but they're on different release lines so there's
>
> nothing wrong with that necessarily. Unless there's something
>
> inherent to the release process that makes it difficult to have two
>
> in-flight simultaneously? (I haven't RM'd a release yet, so there may
>
> well be. Though now that I think back I'm pretty sure other
>
> committers have done this sort of thing before...)
>
>
>
> Was there a particular reason you brought up delaying 8.7?
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:11 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I was planning on a branch cut on 30th September for 8.7 — do we want to
> delay that?
>
> >
>
> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 19:37, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Hi all,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
>
> >>
>
> >> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
>
> >>
>
> >> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
>
> >>
>
> >> of the bigger changes in 8.7
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
>
> >>
>
> >> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
>
> >>
>
> >> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
>
> >>
>
> >> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Best,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Jason
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>
>
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>
> >>
>
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > --
>
> > Regards,
>
> >
>
> > Atri
>
> > Apache Concerted
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> --
Regards,

Atri
Apache Concerted
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
The release process is not conducive to simultaneous releases. We need to
space them out.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:01 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:

> I am not sure if two close releases are a good idea — would they not lead
> to potential confusion amongst users?
>
> In any case, I will defer to the opinion of committers.
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 23:46, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > do we want to delay that?
>>
>>
>>
>> It wasn't my intention to delay 8.7. The releases will end up being
>>
>> close together, but they're on different release lines so there's
>>
>> nothing wrong with that necessarily. Unless there's something
>>
>> inherent to the release process that makes it difficult to have two
>>
>> in-flight simultaneously? (I haven't RM'd a release yet, so there may
>>
>> well be. Though now that I think back I'm pretty sure other
>>
>> committers have done this sort of thing before...)
>>
>>
>>
>> Was there a particular reason you brought up delaying 8.7?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:11 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I was planning on a branch cut on 30th September for 8.7 — do we want
>> to delay that?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 19:37, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Hi all,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> of the bigger changes in 8.7
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Best,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Jason
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> > --
>>
>> > Regards,
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Atri
>>
>> > Apache Concerted
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
> Regards,
>
> Atri
> Apache Concerted
>
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
Simultaneous releases are problematic for our backward-compatibility tests,
but we do not need to wait between releases, we could start the release
process right away when 8.6.3 is out. I don't think there's any potential
for confusion. We've done this several times in the past, e.g. 7.1.0 was
released right after 7.0.1 and 8.4.0 was released right after 8.3.1.

Jason, you mentioned cutting a branch but we only do this for minor
releases. Patch versions get released from the minor branch, branch_8_6 in
this case, so we don't need to cut a branch and can proceed directly with
building a release candidate.

As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to
wait one week? If we built a RC on Friday instead for instance and the
first vote is successful, we might not even need to delay our current plans
for 8.7.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:18 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:

> The release process is not conducive to simultaneous releases. We need to
> space them out.
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:01 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I am not sure if two close releases are a good idea — would they not lead
>> to potential confusion amongst users?
>>
>> In any case, I will defer to the opinion of committers.
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 23:46, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > do we want to delay that?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It wasn't my intention to delay 8.7. The releases will end up being
>>>
>>> close together, but they're on different release lines so there's
>>>
>>> nothing wrong with that necessarily. Unless there's something
>>>
>>> inherent to the release process that makes it difficult to have two
>>>
>>> in-flight simultaneously? (I haven't RM'd a release yet, so there may
>>>
>>> well be. Though now that I think back I'm pretty sure other
>>>
>>> committers have done this sort of thing before...)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Was there a particular reason you brought up delaying 8.7?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:11 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > I was planning on a branch cut on 30th September for 8.7 — do we want
>>> to delay that?
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 19:37, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> Hi all,
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> of the bigger changes in 8.7
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> Best,
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> Jason
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> > --
>>>
>>> > Regards,
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > Atri
>>>
>>> > Apache Concerted
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Atri
>> Apache Concerted
>>
>

--
Adrien
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed SOLR-14768
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14768>, multipart HTTP POST was
broken in 8.6 (a regression I introduced). If you can't do the release or
need help, I will take over. It's the least I can offer in repentance for
the regression.

~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley


On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
> of the bigger changes in 8.7
>
> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
>
> Best,
>
> Jason
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the
back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it
gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.

As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is
released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the
RMs and community.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:

> Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed
> SOLR-14768 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14768>, multipart
> HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I introduced). If you can't do
> the release or need help, I will take over. It's the least I can offer in
> repentance for the regression.
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
>> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
>> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
>> of the bigger changes in 8.7
>>
>> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
>> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
>> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
>> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>

--
Anshum Gupta
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
others mentioned above.

> As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to wait one week?

There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.

Best,

Jason

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
>
> Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
>
> As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the RMs and community.
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over. It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
>>
>> ~ David Smiley
>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
>>> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
>>> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
>>> of the bigger changes in 8.7
>>>
>>> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
>>> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
>>> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
>>> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
do the 8.6.3 release.

Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
> then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
> My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
> proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
> others mentioned above.
>
> > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to wait one week?
>
> There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
> others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
> to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
>
> Best,
>
> Jason
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> >
> > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
> >
> > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the RMs and community.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over. It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
> >>
> >> ~ David Smiley
> >> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> >>> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> >>> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
> >>> of the bigger changes in 8.7
> >>>
> >>> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
> >>> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> >>> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> >>> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Jason
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anshum Gupta
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>


--
Regards,

Atri
Apache Concerted

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual
change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x,
branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two.
In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the
other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to
happen.

~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley


On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:

> I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
> do the 8.6.3 release.
>
> Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
> > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
> > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
> > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
> > others mentioned above.
> >
> > > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really
> need to wait one week?
> >
> > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
> > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
> > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the
> back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it
> gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
> > >
> > > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is
> released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the
> RMs and community.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed
> SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I
> introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over.
> It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
> > >>
> > >> ~ David Smiley
> > >> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <
> gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi all,
> > >>>
> > >>> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> > >>> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> > >>> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for
> some
> > >>> of the bigger changes in 8.7
> > >>>
> > >>> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others
> a
> > >>> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> > >>> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> > >>> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes
> out?
> > >>>
> > >>> Best,
> > >>>
> > >>> Jason
> > >>>
> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Anshum Gupta
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Atri
> Apache Concerted
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.

After checking, I think this fits the bill:
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435

- Houston

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:

> When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual
> change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x,
> branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two.
> In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the
> other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to
> happen.
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
>>
>>
>> do the 8.6.3 release.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>> > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
>>
>>
>> > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
>>
>>
>> > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
>>
>>
>> > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
>>
>>
>> > others mentioned above.
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>> > > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really
>> need to wait one week?
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>> > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
>>
>>
>> > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
>>
>>
>> > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>> > Best,
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>> > Jason
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > >
>>
>>
>> > > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to
>> the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and
>> it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
>>
>>
>> > >
>>
>>
>> > > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3
>> is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for
>> the RMs and community.
>>
>>
>> > >
>>
>>
>> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > >>
>>
>>
>> > >> Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed
>> SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I
>> introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over.
>> It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
>>
>>
>> > >>
>>
>>
>> > >> ~ David Smiley
>>
>>
>> > >> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>>
>>
>> > >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>
>>
>> > >>
>>
>>
>> > >>
>>
>>
>> > >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <
>> gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > >>>
>>
>>
>> > >>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> > >>>
>>
>>
>> > >>> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
>>
>>
>> > >>> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for
>> an
>>
>>
>> > >>> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for
>> some
>>
>>
>> > >>> of the bigger changes in 8.7
>>
>>
>> > >>>
>>
>>
>> > >>> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give
>> others a
>>
>>
>> > >>> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an
>> RC
>>
>>
>> > >>> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
>>
>>
>> > >>> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes
>> out?
>>
>>
>> > >>>
>>
>>
>> > >>> Best,
>>
>>
>> > >>>
>>
>>
>> > >>> Jason
>>
>>
>> > >>>
>>
>>
>> > >>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>> > >>>
>>
>>
>> > >
>>
>>
>> > >
>>
>>
>> > > --
>>
>>
>> > > Anshum Gupta
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Atri
>>
>>
>> Apache Concerted
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
Hey all,

I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
(see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.

So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
work on SOLR-14768!)

Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?

Best,

Jason

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
>
> After checking, I think this fits the bill:
> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
>
> - Houston
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x, branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to happen.
>>
>> ~ David Smiley
>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
>>>
>>>
>>> do the 8.6.3 release.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
>>>
>>>
>>> > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
>>>
>>>
>>> > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
>>>
>>>
>>> > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
>>>
>>>
>>> > others mentioned above.
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> > > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to wait one week?
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
>>>
>>>
>>> > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
>>>
>>>
>>> > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> > Best,
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> > Jason
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>>> > > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
>>>
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>>> > > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the RMs and community.
>>>
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>>> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>
>>>
>>>
>>> > >> Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over. It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>
>>>
>>>
>>> > >> ~ David Smiley
>>>
>>>
>>> > >> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>>>
>>>
>>> > >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>
>>>
>>>
>>> > >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>> of the bigger changes in 8.7
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>> > >>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>>> > > --
>>>
>>>
>>> > > Anshum Gupta
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Atri
>>>
>>>
>>> Apache Concerted
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather than backport?

FWIW,
Erick

> On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
> (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
>
> So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> work on SOLR-14768!)
>
> Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
> to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
>
> Best,
>
> Jason
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
>>
>> After checking, I think this fits the bill:
>> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
>>
>> - Houston
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x, branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to happen.
>>>
>>> ~ David Smiley
>>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> do the 8.6.3 release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> others mentioned above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to wait one week?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the RMs and community.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over. It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> ~ David Smiley
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> of the bigger changes in 8.7
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Atri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apache Concerted
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
+1 Erick

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a
> point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the
> dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use
> 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it
> make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather
> than backport?
>
> FWIW,
> Erick
>
> > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
> > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
> >
> > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> > work on SOLR-14768!)
> >
> > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
> > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
> >>
> >> After checking, I think this fits the bill:
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
> >>
> >> - Houston
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an
> individual change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master,
> branch_8x, branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the
> other two. In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync
> CHANGES.txt on the other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make
> sense for that to happen.
> >>>
> >>> ~ David Smiley
> >>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> do the 8.6.3 release.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <
> gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as
> possible.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> others mentioned above.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really
> need to wait one week?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Jason
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to
> the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and
> it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3
> is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for
> the RMs and community.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed
> SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I
> introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over.
> It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> ~ David Smiley
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <
> gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM
> for an
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for
> some
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> of the bigger changes in 8.7
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give
> others a
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with
> an RC
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan,
> or
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes
> out?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jason
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Anshum Gupta
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Atri
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Apache Concerted
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

--
Adrien
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
> That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released?

The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).

I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
we'd expect/like.


On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather than backport?
>
> FWIW,
> Erick
>
> > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
> > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
> >
> > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> > work on SOLR-14768!)
> >
> > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
> > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
> >>
> >> After checking, I think this fits the bill:
> >> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
> >>
> >> - Houston
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x, branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to happen.
> >>>
> >>> ~ David Smiley
> >>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> do the 8.6.3 release.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> others mentioned above.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to wait one week?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Jason
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the RMs and community.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over. It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> ~ David Smiley
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> of the bigger changes in 8.7
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jason
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Anshum Gupta
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Atri
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Apache Concerted
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.

Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting for before starting the RC?
On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>, wrote:
> > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released?
>
> The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
> latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
> features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
> changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
> SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
> in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
> to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
>
> I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
> the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
> but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
> we'd expect/like.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather than backport?
> >
> > FWIW,
> > Erick
> >
> > > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey all,
> > >
> > > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> > > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> > > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
> > > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
> > >
> > > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> > > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> > > work on SOLR-14768!)
> > >
> > > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> > > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> > > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
> > > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> > > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> > > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
> > > >
> > > > After checking, I think this fits the bill:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
> > > >
> > > > - Houston
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x, branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > ~ David Smiley
> > > > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > do the 8.6.3 release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > others mentioned above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to wait one week?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jason
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the RMs and community.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over. It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ~ David Smiley
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > of the bigger changes in 8.7
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Jason
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anshum Gupta
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Atri
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Apache Concerted
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended
up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
otherwise leave it as-is.

So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
>
> Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting for before starting the RC?
> On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>, wrote:
>
> That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released?
>
>
> The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
> latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
> features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
> changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
> SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
> in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
> to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
>
> I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
> the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
> but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
> we'd expect/like.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather than backport?
>
> FWIW,
> Erick
>
> On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
> (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
>
> So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> work on SOLR-14768!)
>
> Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
> to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
>
> Best,
>
> Jason
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
>
> After checking, I think this fits the bill:
> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
>
> - Houston
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x, branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to happen.
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
>
>
> do the 8.6.3 release.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
>
>
>
> then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
>
>
>
> My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
>
>
>
> proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
>
>
>
> others mentioned above.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to wait one week?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
>
>
>
> others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
>
>
>
> to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the RMs and community.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over. It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~ David Smiley
>
>
>
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>
>
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
>
>
>
> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
>
>
>
> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
>
>
>
> of the bigger changes in 8.7
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
>
>
>
> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
>
>
>
> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
>
>
>
> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Anshum Gupta
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Atri
>
>
> Apache Concerted
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
chance? Would appreciate the review.

8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene
level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
attention to, if someone can check my wording there.

[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
[2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
> SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended
> up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
> suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
> otherwise leave it as-is.
>
> So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
> Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
> >
> > Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting for before starting the RC?
> > On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>, wrote:
> >
> > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released?
> >
> >
> > The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
> > latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
> > features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
> > changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
> > SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
> > in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
> > to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
> >
> > I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
> > the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
> > but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
> > we'd expect/like.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather than backport?
> >
> > FWIW,
> > Erick
> >
> > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
> > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
> >
> > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> > work on SOLR-14768!)
> >
> > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
> > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
> >
> > After checking, I think this fits the bill:
> > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
> >
> > - Houston
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x, branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to happen.
> >
> > ~ David Smiley
> > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
> >
> >
> > do the 8.6.3 release.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
> >
> >
> >
> > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
> >
> >
> >
> > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
> >
> >
> >
> > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
> >
> >
> >
> > others mentioned above.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to wait one week?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
> >
> >
> >
> > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
> >
> >
> >
> > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the RMs and community.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over. It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ~ David Smiley
> >
> >
> >
> > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> >
> >
> >
> > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> >
> >
> >
> > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
> >
> >
> >
> > of the bigger changes in 8.7
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
> >
> >
> >
> > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> >
> >
> >
> > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> >
> >
> >
> > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > Anshum Gupta
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Atri
> >
> >
> > Apache Concerted
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
I wanted to ask now that the 8.6.3 vote is underway - for the docker-solr image, are the update instructions in the docker-solr repo still the same for 8.x even though the build process has been moved to the main project for 9.0? Meaning, to release the 8.6.3 image there’s no change from before, right?

I’m asking specifically about these instructions:

https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/blob/master/update.md
On Oct 1, 2020, 9:28 AM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>, wrote:
> I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
> someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
> chance? Would appreciate the review.
>
> 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
> bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
> Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene
> level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
> indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
> attention to, if someone can check my wording there.
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
> > SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended
> > up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
> > suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
> > otherwise leave it as-is.
> >
> > So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
> > Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
> > >
> > > Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting for before starting the RC?
> > > On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>, wrote:
> > >
> > > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released?
> > >
> > >
> > > The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
> > > latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
> > > features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
> > > changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
> > > SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
> > > in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
> > > to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
> > >
> > > I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
> > > the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
> > > but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
> > > we'd expect/like.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather than backport?
> > >
> > > FWIW,
> > > Erick
> > >
> > > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey all,
> > >
> > > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> > > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> > > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
> > > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
> > >
> > > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> > > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> > > work on SOLR-14768!)
> > >
> > > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> > > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> > > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
> > > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> > > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> > > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
> > >
> > > After checking, I think this fits the bill:
> > > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
> > >
> > > - Houston
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x, branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to happen.
> > >
> > > ~ David Smiley
> > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
> > >
> > >
> > > do the 8.6.3 release.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > others mentioned above.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to wait one week?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the RMs and community.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over. It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~ David Smiley
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > of the bigger changes in 8.7
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anshum Gupta
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Atri
> > >
> > >
> > > Apache Concerted
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
That is correct. 8.x docker builds have not been affected in any way.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:30 AM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I wanted to ask now that the 8.6.3 vote is underway - for the docker-solr
> image, are the update instructions in the docker-solr repo still the same
> for 8.x even though the build process has been moved to the main project
> for 9.0? Meaning, to release the 8.6.3 image there’s no change from before,
> right?
>
> I’m asking specifically about these instructions:
>
> https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/blob/master/update.md
> On Oct 1, 2020, 9:28 AM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>,
> wrote:
>
> I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
> someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
> chance? Would appreciate the review.
>
> 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
> bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
> Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene
> level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
> indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
> attention to, if someone can check my wording there.
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> [2]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
> SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended
> up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
> suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
> otherwise leave it as-is.
>
> So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
> Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it
> seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a
> Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
>
> Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting
> for before starting the RC?
> On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>,
> wrote:
>
> That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to
> 8.7 when it’e released?
>
>
> The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
> latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
> features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
> changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
> SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
> in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
> to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
>
> I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
> the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
> but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
> we'd expect/like.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a
> point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the
> dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use
> 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it
> make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather
> than backport?
>
> FWIW,
> Erick
>
> On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
> (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
>
> So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> work on SOLR-14768!)
>
> Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
> to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
>
> Best,
>
> Jason
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
>
> After checking, I think this fits the bill:
>
> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
>
> - Houston
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual
> change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x,
> branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In
> the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the
> other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to
> happen.
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
>
>
> do the 8.6.3 release.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
>
>
>
> then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
>
>
>
> My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
>
>
>
> proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
>
>
>
> others mentioned above.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to
> wait one week?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
>
>
>
> others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
>
>
>
> to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the
> back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it
> gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is
> released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the
> RMs and community.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed
> SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I
> introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over.
> It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~ David Smiley
>
>
>
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>
>
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
>
>
>
> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
>
>
>
> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
>
>
>
> of the bigger changes in 8.7
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
>
>
>
> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
>
>
>
> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
>
>
>
> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Anshum Gupta
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Atri
>
>
> Apache Concerted
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
FWIW: I followed the docs to update the Dockerfiles + TAGS for 8.6.3, and
run tests; but since it's in a distinct github repo I don't think i can
push to it?

so i creaed a GH issue w/patch...

https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/issues/349



: Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:33:15 -0400
: From: Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
: To: Solr/Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
: Subject: Re: 8.6.3 Release
:
: That is correct. 8.x docker builds have not been affected in any way.
:
: On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:30 AM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com>
: wrote:
:
: > I wanted to ask now that the 8.6.3 vote is underway - for the docker-solr
: > image, are the update instructions in the docker-solr repo still the same
: > for 8.x even though the build process has been moved to the main project
: > for 9.0? Meaning, to release the 8.6.3 image there’s no change from before,
: > right?
: >
: > I’m asking specifically about these instructions:
: >
: > https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/blob/master/update.md
: > On Oct 1, 2020, 9:28 AM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>,
: > wrote:
: >
: > I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
: > someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
: > chance? Would appreciate the review.
: >
: > 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
: > bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
: > Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene
: > level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
: > indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
: > attention to, if someone can check my wording there.
: >
: > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
: > [2]
: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
: >
: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
: > wrote:
: >
: >
: > The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
: > SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended
: > up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
: > suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
: > otherwise leave it as-is.
: >
: > So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
: > Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
: >
: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com>
: > wrote:
: >
: >
: > It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (
: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it
: > seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a
: > Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
: >
: > Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting
: > for before starting the RC?
: > On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>,
: > wrote:
: >
: > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to
: > 8.7 when it’e released?
: >
: >
: > The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
: > latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
: > features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
: > changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
: > SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
: > in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
: > to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
: >
: > I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
: > the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
: > but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
: > we'd expect/like.
: >
: >
: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com>
: > wrote:
: >
: >
: > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a
: > point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the
: > dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use
: > 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it
: > make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather
: > than backport?
: >
: > FWIW,
: > Erick
: >
: > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
: > wrote:
: >
: > Hey all,
: >
: > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
: > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
: > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
: > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
: >
: > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
: > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
: > work on SOLR-14768!)
: >
: > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
: > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
: > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
: > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
: > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
: > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
: >
: > Best,
: >
: > Jason
: >
: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
: > wrote:
: >
: >
: > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
: >
: > After checking, I think this fits the bill:
: >
: > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
: >
: > - Houston
: >
: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
: >
: >
: > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual
: > change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x,
: > branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In
: > the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the
: > other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to
: > happen.
: >
: > ~ David Smiley
: > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
: > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
: >
: >
: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
: >
: >
: > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
: >
: >
: > do the 8.6.3 release.
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
: > wrote:
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
: >
: >
: >
: > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
: >
: >
: >
: > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
: >
: >
: >
: > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
: >
: >
: >
: > others mentioned above.
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to
: > wait one week?
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
: >
: >
: >
: > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
: >
: >
: >
: > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > Best,
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > Jason
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
: > wrote:
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the
: > back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it
: > gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is
: > released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the
: > RMs and community.
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed
: > SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I
: > introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over.
: > It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > ~ David Smiley
: >
: >
: >
: > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
: >
: >
: >
: > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
: > wrote:
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > Hi all,
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
: >
: >
: >
: > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
: >
: >
: >
: > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
: >
: >
: >
: > of the bigger changes in 8.7
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
: >
: >
: >
: > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
: >
: >
: >
: > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
: >
: >
: >
: > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > Best,
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > Jason
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: >
: >
: >
: > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
: >
: >
: >
: > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > --
: >
: >
: >
: > Anshum Gupta
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: >
: >
: >
: > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
: >
: >
: >
: > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > --
: >
: >
: > Regards,
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > Atri
: >
: >
: > Apache Concerted
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: >
: >
: > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
: >
: >
: > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
: > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
: >
: >
: >
: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
: > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
: >
: >
: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
: > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
: >
: >
: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
: > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
: >
: >
:

-Hoss
http://www.lucidworks.com/
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
The way GitHub works for contributors is that you are expected to fork a
repo and then push to your fork. At that point when you go to the PR area,
you'll see a convenient yellow dialog to create a PR based on your pushed
branch.

~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley


On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 10:20 AM Chris Hostetter <hossman_lucene@fucit.org>
wrote:

>
> FWIW: I followed the docs to update the Dockerfiles + TAGS for 8.6.3, and
> run tests; but since it's in a distinct github repo I don't think i can
> push to it?
>
> so i creaed a GH issue w/patch...
>
> https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/issues/349
>
>
>
> : Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:33:15 -0400
> : From: Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
> : Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> : To: Solr/Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
> : Subject: Re: 8.6.3 Release
> :
> : That is correct. 8.x docker builds have not been affected in any way.
> :
> : On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:30 AM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com
> >
> : wrote:
> :
> : > I wanted to ask now that the 8.6.3 vote is underway - for the
> docker-solr
> : > image, are the update instructions in the docker-solr repo still the
> same
> : > for 8.x even though the build process has been moved to the main
> project
> : > for 9.0? Meaning, to release the 8.6.3 image there’s no change from
> before,
> : > right?
> : >
> : > I’m asking specifically about these instructions:
> : >
> : > https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/blob/master/update.md
> : > On Oct 1, 2020, 9:28 AM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com
> >,
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : > I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
> : > someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
> : > chance? Would appreciate the review.
> : >
> : > 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
> : > bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
> : > Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene
> : > level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
> : > indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
> : > attention to, if someone can check my wording there.
> : >
> : > [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> : > [2]
> : >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> : >
> : > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <
> gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
> : > SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended
> : > up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
> : > suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
> : > otherwise leave it as-is.
> : >
> : > So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
> : > Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
> : >
> : > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <
> casstargett@gmail.com>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (
> : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and
> it
> : > seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make
> a
> : > Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
> : >
> : > Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting
> : > for before starting the RC?
> : > On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <
> gerlowskija@gmail.com>,
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to
> : > 8.7 when it’e released?
> : >
> : >
> : > The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
> : > latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
> : > features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
> : > changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
> : > SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
> : > in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
> : > to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
> : >
> : > I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
> : > the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
> : > but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
> : > we'd expect/like.
> : >
> : >
> : > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <
> erickerickson@gmail.com>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a
> : > point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the
> : > dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use
> : > 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released?
> Would it
> : > make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door
> rather
> : > than backport?
> : >
> : > FWIW,
> : > Erick
> : >
> : > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : > Hey all,
> : >
> : > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> : > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> : > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
> : > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
> : >
> : > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> : > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> : > work on SOLR-14768!)
> : >
> : > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> : > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> : > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
> : > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> : > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> : > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
> : >
> : > Best,
> : >
> : > Jason
> : >
> : > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <
> houstonputman@gmail.com>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
> : >
> : > After checking, I think this fits the bill:
> : >
> : >
> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
> : >
> : > - Houston
> : >
> : > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org>
> wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an
> individual
> : > change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master,
> branch_8x,
> : > branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other
> two. In
> : > the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the
> : > other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to
> : > happen.
> : >
> : > ~ David Smiley
> : > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> : > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> : >
> : >
> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
> : >
> : >
> : > do the 8.6.3 release.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com
> >
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > others mentioned above.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really
> need to
> : > wait one week?
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Best,
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Jason
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the
> : > back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases
> and it
> : > gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is
> : > released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier
> for the
> : > RMs and community.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org>
> wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed
> : > SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I
> : > introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take
> over.
> : > It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > ~ David Smiley
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <
> gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Hi all,
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > of the bigger changes in 8.7
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Best,
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Jason
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > --
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Anshum Gupta
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > --
> : >
> : >
> : > Regards,
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Atri
> : >
> : >
> : > Apache Concerted
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : >
> : >
> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> :
>
> -Hoss
> http://www.lucidworks.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
The traditional (non-docker) part of the release should now be wrapped
up. Thanks everyone for the help and answering my questions here and
in Slack. One final question:

The final releaseWizard.py step instructs:

"The Solr WIKI has a page for every version which is often linked to
from WIKI pages to indicate differences between versions, example:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solr4.3. Do the following: Update the page
for the released version with release date and link to release
statement. Create a new placeholder page for the "next" version, if it
does not exist"

But looking at our wiki, the latest of these pages is 8.2
(https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/Solr8.2). I've
created the pages as instructed for now. But if we're not following
this step regularly and it hasn't caused any issues maybe we should
remove it from the release process altogether?

Jason

On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 5:16 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>
> The way GitHub works for contributors is that you are expected to fork a repo and then push to your fork. At that point when you go to the PR area, you'll see a convenient yellow dialog to create a PR based on your pushed branch.
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 10:20 AM Chris Hostetter <hossman_lucene@fucit.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> FWIW: I followed the docs to update the Dockerfiles + TAGS for 8.6.3, and
>> run tests; but since it's in a distinct github repo I don't think i can
>> push to it?
>>
>> so i creaed a GH issue w/patch...
>>
>> https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/issues/349
>>
>>
>>
>> : Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:33:15 -0400
>> : From: Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
>> : Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>> : To: Solr/Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
>> : Subject: Re: 8.6.3 Release
>> :
>> : That is correct. 8.x docker builds have not been affected in any way.
>> :
>> : On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:30 AM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com>
>> : wrote:
>> :
>> : > I wanted to ask now that the 8.6.3 vote is underway - for the docker-solr
>> : > image, are the update instructions in the docker-solr repo still the same
>> : > for 8.x even though the build process has been moved to the main project
>> : > for 9.0? Meaning, to release the 8.6.3 image there’s no change from before,
>> : > right?
>> : >
>> : > I’m asking specifically about these instructions:
>> : >
>> : > https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/blob/master/update.md
>> : > On Oct 1, 2020, 9:28 AM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>,
>> : > wrote:
>> : >
>> : > I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
>> : > someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
>> : > chance? Would appreciate the review.
>> : >
>> : > 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
>> : > bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
>> : > Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene
>> : > level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
>> : > indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
>> : > attention to, if someone can check my wording there.
>> : >
>> : > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
>> : > [2]
>> : > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
>> : >
>> : > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
>> : > wrote:
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
>> : > SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended
>> : > up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
>> : > suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
>> : > otherwise leave it as-is.
>> : >
>> : > So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
>> : > Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
>> : >
>> : > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com>
>> : > wrote:
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (
>> : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it
>> : > seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a
>> : > Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
>> : >
>> : > Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting
>> : > for before starting the RC?
>> : > On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>,
>> : > wrote:
>> : >
>> : > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to
>> : > 8.7 when it’e released?
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
>> : > latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
>> : > features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
>> : > changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
>> : > SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
>> : > in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
>> : > to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
>> : >
>> : > I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
>> : > the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
>> : > but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
>> : > we'd expect/like.
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com>
>> : > wrote:
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a
>> : > point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the
>> : > dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use
>> : > 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it
>> : > make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather
>> : > than backport?
>> : >
>> : > FWIW,
>> : > Erick
>> : >
>> : > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
>> : > wrote:
>> : >
>> : > Hey all,
>> : >
>> : > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
>> : > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
>> : > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
>> : > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
>> : >
>> : > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
>> : > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
>> : > work on SOLR-14768!)
>> : >
>> : > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
>> : > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
>> : > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
>> : > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
>> : > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
>> : > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
>> : >
>> : > Best,
>> : >
>> : > Jason
>> : >
>> : > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
>> : > wrote:
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
>> : >
>> : > After checking, I think this fits the bill:
>> : >
>> : > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
>> : >
>> : > - Houston
>> : >
>> : > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual
>> : > change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x,
>> : > branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In
>> : > the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the
>> : > other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to
>> : > happen.
>> : >
>> : > ~ David Smiley
>> : > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>> : > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > do the 8.6.3 release.
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
>> : > wrote:
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > others mentioned above.
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to
>> : > wait one week?
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > Best,
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > Jason
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
>> : > wrote:
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the
>> : > back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it
>> : > gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is
>> : > released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the
>> : > RMs and community.
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed
>> : > SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I
>> : > introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over.
>> : > It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > ~ David Smiley
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
>> : > wrote:
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > Hi all,
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > of the bigger changes in 8.7
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > Best,
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > Jason
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > --
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > Anshum Gupta
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > --
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > Regards,
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > Atri
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > Apache Concerted
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> : >
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> : >
>> : >
>> :
>>
>> -Hoss
>> http://www.lucidworks.com/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
Small correction: I see now some pages for 8.4 and 8.6 in a different
section of the wiki tree. But the overall point still stands I think
- this hasn't been done consistently and it doesn't seem like that's
caused any problems (as the pages are all stubs anyways).

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 12:05 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The traditional (non-docker) part of the release should now be wrapped
> up. Thanks everyone for the help and answering my questions here and
> in Slack. One final question:
>
> The final releaseWizard.py step instructs:
>
> "The Solr WIKI has a page for every version which is often linked to
> from WIKI pages to indicate differences between versions, example:
> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solr4.3. Do the following: Update the page
> for the released version with release date and link to release
> statement. Create a new placeholder page for the "next" version, if it
> does not exist"
>
> But looking at our wiki, the latest of these pages is 8.2
> (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/Solr8.2). I've
> created the pages as instructed for now. But if we're not following
> this step regularly and it hasn't caused any issues maybe we should
> remove it from the release process altogether?
>
> Jason
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 5:16 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > The way GitHub works for contributors is that you are expected to fork a repo and then push to your fork. At that point when you go to the PR area, you'll see a convenient yellow dialog to create a PR based on your pushed branch.
> >
> > ~ David Smiley
> > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 10:20 AM Chris Hostetter <hossman_lucene@fucit.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> FWIW: I followed the docs to update the Dockerfiles + TAGS for 8.6.3, and
> >> run tests; but since it's in a distinct github repo I don't think i can
> >> push to it?
> >>
> >> so i creaed a GH issue w/patch...
> >>
> >> https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/issues/349
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> : Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:33:15 -0400
> >> : From: Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
> >> : Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> >> : To: Solr/Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
> >> : Subject: Re: 8.6.3 Release
> >> :
> >> : That is correct. 8.x docker builds have not been affected in any way.
> >> :
> >> : On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:30 AM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com>
> >> : wrote:
> >> :
> >> : > I wanted to ask now that the 8.6.3 vote is underway - for the docker-solr
> >> : > image, are the update instructions in the docker-solr repo still the same
> >> : > for 8.x even though the build process has been moved to the main project
> >> : > for 9.0? Meaning, to release the 8.6.3 image there’s no change from before,
> >> : > right?
> >> : >
> >> : > I’m asking specifically about these instructions:
> >> : >
> >> : > https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/blob/master/update.md
> >> : > On Oct 1, 2020, 9:28 AM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>,
> >> : > wrote:
> >> : >
> >> : > I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
> >> : > someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
> >> : > chance? Would appreciate the review.
> >> : >
> >> : > 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
> >> : > bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
> >> : > Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene
> >> : > level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
> >> : > indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
> >> : > attention to, if someone can check my wording there.
> >> : >
> >> : > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> >> : > [2]
> >> : > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> >> : >
> >> : > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> >> : > wrote:
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
> >> : > SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended
> >> : > up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
> >> : > suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
> >> : > otherwise leave it as-is.
> >> : >
> >> : > So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
> >> : > Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
> >> : >
> >> : > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com>
> >> : > wrote:
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (
> >> : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it
> >> : > seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a
> >> : > Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
> >> : >
> >> : > Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting
> >> : > for before starting the RC?
> >> : > On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>,
> >> : > wrote:
> >> : >
> >> : > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to
> >> : > 8.7 when it’e released?
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
> >> : > latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
> >> : > features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
> >> : > changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
> >> : > SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
> >> : > in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
> >> : > to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
> >> : >
> >> : > I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
> >> : > the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
> >> : > but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
> >> : > we'd expect/like.
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com>
> >> : > wrote:
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a
> >> : > point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the
> >> : > dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use
> >> : > 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it
> >> : > make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather
> >> : > than backport?
> >> : >
> >> : > FWIW,
> >> : > Erick
> >> : >
> >> : > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> >> : > wrote:
> >> : >
> >> : > Hey all,
> >> : >
> >> : > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> >> : > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> >> : > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
> >> : > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
> >> : >
> >> : > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> >> : > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> >> : > work on SOLR-14768!)
> >> : >
> >> : > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> >> : > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> >> : > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
> >> : > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> >> : > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> >> : > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
> >> : >
> >> : > Best,
> >> : >
> >> : > Jason
> >> : >
> >> : > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
> >> : > wrote:
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
> >> : >
> >> : > After checking, I think this fits the bill:
> >> : >
> >> : > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
> >> : >
> >> : > - Houston
> >> : >
> >> : > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual
> >> : > change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x,
> >> : > branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In
> >> : > the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the
> >> : > other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to
> >> : > happen.
> >> : >
> >> : > ~ David Smiley
> >> : > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> >> : > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > do the 8.6.3 release.
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> >> : > wrote:
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > others mentioned above.
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to
> >> : > wait one week?
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > Best,
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > Jason
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
> >> : > wrote:
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the
> >> : > back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it
> >> : > gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is
> >> : > released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the
> >> : > RMs and community.
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed
> >> : > SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I
> >> : > introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over.
> >> : > It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > ~ David Smiley
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> >> : > wrote:
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > Hi all,
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > of the bigger changes in 8.7
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > Best,
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > Jason
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > --
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > Anshum Gupta
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > --
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > Regards,
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > Atri
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > Apache Concerted
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> : >
> >> : >
> >> :
> >>
> >> -Hoss
> >> http://www.lucidworks.com/
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
We discussed this before and agreed that could be removed. I made a patch to remove it but my editor always removes trailing whitespace and Jan doesn’t want that for some reason and I haven’t had time to go back to it. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9434.
On Oct 9, 2020, 11:09 AM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>, wrote:
> Small correction: I see now some pages for 8.4 and 8.6 in a different
> section of the wiki tree. But the overall point still stands I think
> - this hasn't been done consistently and it doesn't seem like that's
> caused any problems (as the pages are all stubs anyways).
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 12:05 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The traditional (non-docker) part of the release should now be wrapped
> > up. Thanks everyone for the help and answering my questions here and
> > in Slack. One final question:
> >
> > The final releaseWizard.py step instructs:
> >
> > "The Solr WIKI has a page for every version which is often linked to
> > from WIKI pages to indicate differences between versions, example:
> > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solr4.3. Do the following: Update the page
> > for the released version with release date and link to release
> > statement. Create a new placeholder page for the "next" version, if it
> > does not exist"
> >
> > But looking at our wiki, the latest of these pages is 8.2
> > (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/Solr8.2). I've
> > created the pages as instructed for now. But if we're not following
> > this step regularly and it hasn't caused any issues maybe we should
> > remove it from the release process altogether?
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 5:16 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > The way GitHub works for contributors is that you are expected to fork a repo and then push to your fork. At that point when you go to the PR area, you'll see a convenient yellow dialog to create a PR based on your pushed branch.
> > >
> > > ~ David Smiley
> > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 10:20 AM Chris Hostetter <hossman_lucene@fucit.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > FWIW: I followed the docs to update the Dockerfiles + TAGS for 8.6.3, and
> > > > run tests; but since it's in a distinct github repo I don't think i can
> > > > push to it?
> > > >
> > > > so i creaed a GH issue w/patch...
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/issues/349
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > : Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:33:15 -0400
> > > > : From: Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
> > > > : Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > : To: Solr/Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > : Subject: Re: 8.6.3 Release
> > > > :
> > > > : That is correct. 8.x docker builds have not been affected in any way.
> > > > :
> > > > : On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:30 AM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com>
> > > > : wrote:
> > > > :
> > > > : > I wanted to ask now that the 8.6.3 vote is underway - for the docker-solr
> > > > : > image, are the update instructions in the docker-solr repo still the same
> > > > : > for 8.x even though the build process has been moved to the main project
> > > > : > for 9.0? Meaning, to release the 8.6.3 image there’s no change from before,
> > > > : > right?
> > > > : >
> > > > : > I’m asking specifically about these instructions:
> > > > : >
> > > > : > https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/blob/master/update.md
> > > > : > On Oct 1, 2020, 9:28 AM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>,
> > > > : > wrote:
> > > > : >
> > > > : > I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
> > > > : > someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
> > > > : > chance? Would appreciate the review.
> > > > : >
> > > > : > 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
> > > > : > bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
> > > > : > Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene
> > > > : > level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
> > > > : > indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
> > > > : > attention to, if someone can check my wording there.
> > > > : >
> > > > : > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> > > > : > [2]
> > > > : > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> > > > : >
> > > > : > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> > > > : > wrote:
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
> > > > : > SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended
> > > > : > up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
> > > > : > suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
> > > > : > otherwise leave it as-is.
> > > > : >
> > > > : > So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
> > > > : > Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
> > > > : >
> > > > : > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com>
> > > > : > wrote:
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (
> > > > : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it
> > > > : > seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a
> > > > : > Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting
> > > > : > for before starting the RC?
> > > > : > On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>,
> > > > : > wrote:
> > > > : >
> > > > : > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to
> > > > : > 8.7 when it’e released?
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
> > > > : > latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
> > > > : > features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
> > > > : > changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
> > > > : > SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
> > > > : > in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
> > > > : > to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
> > > > : >
> > > > : > I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
> > > > : > the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
> > > > : > but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
> > > > : > we'd expect/like.
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com>
> > > > : > wrote:
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a
> > > > : > point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the
> > > > : > dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use
> > > > : > 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it
> > > > : > make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather
> > > > : > than backport?
> > > > : >
> > > > : > FWIW,
> > > > : > Erick
> > > > : >
> > > > : > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> > > > : > wrote:
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Hey all,
> > > > : >
> > > > : > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> > > > : > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> > > > : > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
> > > > : > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
> > > > : >
> > > > : > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> > > > : > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> > > > : > work on SOLR-14768!)
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> > > > : > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> > > > : > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
> > > > : > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> > > > : > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> > > > : > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Best,
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Jason
> > > > : >
> > > > : > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
> > > > : > wrote:
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
> > > > : >
> > > > : > After checking, I think this fits the bill:
> > > > : >
> > > > : > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
> > > > : >
> > > > : > - Houston
> > > > : >
> > > > : > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual
> > > > : > change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x,
> > > > : > branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In
> > > > : > the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the
> > > > : > other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to
> > > > : > happen.
> > > > : >
> > > > : > ~ David Smiley
> > > > : > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > > > : > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > do the 8.6.3 release.
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> > > > : > wrote:
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > others mentioned above.
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to
> > > > : > wait one week?
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Best,
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Jason
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
> > > > : > wrote:
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the
> > > > : > back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it
> > > > : > gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is
> > > > : > released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the
> > > > : > RMs and community.
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed
> > > > : > SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I
> > > > : > introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over.
> > > > : > It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > ~ David Smiley
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> > > > : > wrote:
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Hi all,
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > of the bigger changes in 8.7
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Best,
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Jason
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > --
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Anshum Gupta
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > --
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Regards,
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Atri
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > Apache Concerted
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > > : >
> > > > : >
> > > > :
> > > >
> > > > -Hoss
> > > > http://www.lucidworks.com/
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
It was not my intention to hold up LUCENE-9434, I was worried that it could affect formatting.
That should be easy to verify though, so feel free to continue with the patch!

Jan

> 9. okt. 2020 kl. 18:52 skrev Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com>:
>
> We discussed this before and agreed that could be removed. I made a patch to remove it but my editor always removes trailing whitespace and Jan doesn’t want that for some reason and I haven’t had time to go back to it. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9434 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9434>.
> On Oct 9, 2020, 11:09 AM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>, wrote:
>> Small correction: I see now some pages for 8.4 and 8.6 in a different
>> section of the wiki tree. But the overall point still stands I think
>> - this hasn't been done consistently and it doesn't seem like that's
>> caused any problems (as the pages are all stubs anyways).
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 12:05 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The traditional (non-docker) part of the release should now be wrapped
>>> up. Thanks everyone for the help and answering my questions here and
>>> in Slack. One final question:
>>>
>>> The final releaseWizard.py step instructs:
>>>
>>> "The Solr WIKI has a page for every version which is often linked to
>>> from WIKI pages to indicate differences between versions, example:
>>> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solr4.3. Do the following: Update the page
>>> for the released version with release date and link to release
>>> statement. Create a new placeholder page for the "next" version, if it
>>> does not exist"
>>>
>>> But looking at our wiki, the latest of these pages is 8.2
>>> (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/Solr8.2). I've
>>> created the pages as instructed for now. But if we're not following
>>> this step regularly and it hasn't caused any issues maybe we should
>>> remove it from the release process altogether?
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 5:16 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The way GitHub works for contributors is that you are expected to fork a repo and then push to your fork. At that point when you go to the PR area, you'll see a convenient yellow dialog to create a PR based on your pushed branch.
>>>>
>>>> ~ David Smiley
>>>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 10:20 AM Chris Hostetter <hossman_lucene@fucit.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW: I followed the docs to update the Dockerfiles + TAGS for 8.6.3, and
>>>>> run tests; but since it's in a distinct github repo I don't think i can
>>>>> push to it?
>>>>>
>>>>> so i creaed a GH issue w/patch...
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/issues/349
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> : Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:33:15 -0400
>>>>> : From: Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
>>>>> : Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> : To: Solr/Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
>>>>> : Subject: Re: 8.6.3 Release
>>>>> :
>>>>> : That is correct. 8.x docker builds have not been affected in any way.
>>>>> :
>>>>> : On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:30 AM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com>
>>>>> : wrote:
>>>>> :
>>>>> : > I wanted to ask now that the 8.6.3 vote is underway - for the docker-solr
>>>>> : > image, are the update instructions in the docker-solr repo still the same
>>>>> : > for 8.x even though the build process has been moved to the main project
>>>>> : > for 9.0? Meaning, to release the 8.6.3 image there’s no change from before,
>>>>> : > right?
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > I’m asking specifically about these instructions:
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/blob/master/update.md
>>>>> : > On Oct 1, 2020, 9:28 AM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>,
>>>>> : > wrote:
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
>>>>> : > someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
>>>>> : > chance? Would appreciate the review.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
>>>>> : > bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
>>>>> : > Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene
>>>>> : > level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
>>>>> : > indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
>>>>> : > attention to, if someone can check my wording there.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
>>>>> : > [2]
>>>>> : > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
>>>>> : > wrote:
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
>>>>> : > SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended
>>>>> : > up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
>>>>> : > suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
>>>>> : > otherwise leave it as-is.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
>>>>> : > Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com>
>>>>> : > wrote:
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (
>>>>> : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it
>>>>> : > seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a
>>>>> : > Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting
>>>>> : > for before starting the RC?
>>>>> : > On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>,
>>>>> : > wrote:
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to
>>>>> : > 8.7 when it’e released?
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
>>>>> : > latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
>>>>> : > features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
>>>>> : > changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
>>>>> : > SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
>>>>> : > in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
>>>>> : > to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
>>>>> : > the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
>>>>> : > but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
>>>>> : > we'd expect/like.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com>
>>>>> : > wrote:
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a
>>>>> : > point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the
>>>>> : > dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use
>>>>> : > 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it
>>>>> : > make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather
>>>>> : > than backport?
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > FWIW,
>>>>> : > Erick
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
>>>>> : > wrote:
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Hey all,
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
>>>>> : > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
>>>>> : > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
>>>>> : > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
>>>>> : > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
>>>>> : > work on SOLR-14768!)
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
>>>>> : > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
>>>>> : > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
>>>>> : > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
>>>>> : > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
>>>>> : > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Best,
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Jason
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
>>>>> : > wrote:
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > After checking, I think this fits the bill:
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > - Houston
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual
>>>>> : > change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x,
>>>>> : > branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In
>>>>> : > the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the
>>>>> : > other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to
>>>>> : > happen.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > ~ David Smiley
>>>>> : > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>>>>> : > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > do the 8.6.3 release.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
>>>>> : > wrote:
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > others mentioned above.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to
>>>>> : > wait one week?
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Best,
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Jason
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
>>>>> : > wrote:
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the
>>>>> : > back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it
>>>>> : > gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is
>>>>> : > released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the
>>>>> : > RMs and community.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed
>>>>> : > SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I
>>>>> : > introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over.
>>>>> : > It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > ~ David Smiley
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
>>>>> : > wrote:
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Hi all,
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > of the bigger changes in 8.7
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Best,
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Jason
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > --
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Anshum Gupta
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > --
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Regards,
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Atri
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > Apache Concerted
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : >
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>> -Hoss
>>>>> http://www.lucidworks.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
Thanks for the pointer Cassandra and clarification Jan. I'll tidy the
patch and look to commit if there's no additional complications.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 1:01 PM Jan Høydahl <jan.asf@cominvent.com> wrote:
>
> It was not my intention to hold up LUCENE-9434, I was worried that it could affect formatting.
> That should be easy to verify though, so feel free to continue with the patch!
>
> Jan
>
> 9. okt. 2020 kl. 18:52 skrev Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com>:
>
> We discussed this before and agreed that could be removed. I made a patch to remove it but my editor always removes trailing whitespace and Jan doesn’t want that for some reason and I haven’t had time to go back to it. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9434.
> On Oct 9, 2020, 11:09 AM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>, wrote:
>
> Small correction: I see now some pages for 8.4 and 8.6 in a different
> section of the wiki tree. But the overall point still stands I think
> - this hasn't been done consistently and it doesn't seem like that's
> caused any problems (as the pages are all stubs anyways).
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 12:05 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The traditional (non-docker) part of the release should now be wrapped
> up. Thanks everyone for the help and answering my questions here and
> in Slack. One final question:
>
> The final releaseWizard.py step instructs:
>
> "The Solr WIKI has a page for every version which is often linked to
> from WIKI pages to indicate differences between versions, example:
> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solr4.3. Do the following: Update the page
> for the released version with release date and link to release
> statement. Create a new placeholder page for the "next" version, if it
> does not exist"
>
> But looking at our wiki, the latest of these pages is 8.2
> (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/Solr8.2). I've
> created the pages as instructed for now. But if we're not following
> this step regularly and it hasn't caused any issues maybe we should
> remove it from the release process altogether?
>
> Jason
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 5:16 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> The way GitHub works for contributors is that you are expected to fork a repo and then push to your fork. At that point when you go to the PR area, you'll see a convenient yellow dialog to create a PR based on your pushed branch.
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 10:20 AM Chris Hostetter <hossman_lucene@fucit.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> FWIW: I followed the docs to update the Dockerfiles + TAGS for 8.6.3, and
> run tests; but since it's in a distinct github repo I don't think i can
> push to it?
>
> so i creaed a GH issue w/patch...
>
> https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/issues/349
>
>
>
> : Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 11:33:15 -0400
> : From: Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
> : Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> : To: Solr/Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
> : Subject: Re: 8.6.3 Release
> :
> : That is correct. 8.x docker builds have not been affected in any way.
> :
> : On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 11:30 AM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com>
> : wrote:
> :
> : > I wanted to ask now that the 8.6.3 vote is underway - for the docker-solr
> : > image, are the update instructions in the docker-solr repo still the same
> : > for 8.x even though the build process has been moved to the main project
> : > for 9.0? Meaning, to release the 8.6.3 image there’s no change from before,
> : > right?
> : >
> : > I’m asking specifically about these instructions:
> : >
> : > https://github.com/docker-solr/docker-solr/blob/master/update.md
> : > On Oct 1, 2020, 9:28 AM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>,
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : > I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
> : > someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
> : > chance? Would appreciate the review.
> : >
> : > 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
> : > bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
> : > Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene
> : > level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
> : > indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
> : > attention to, if someone can check my wording there.
> : >
> : > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> : > [2]
> : > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> : >
> : > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
> : > SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended
> : > up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
> : > suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
> : > otherwise leave it as-is.
> : >
> : > So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
> : > Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
> : >
> : > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (
> : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it
> : > seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a
> : > Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
> : >
> : > Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting
> : > for before starting the RC?
> : > On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>,
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to
> : > 8.7 when it’e released?
> : >
> : >
> : > The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
> : > latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
> : > features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
> : > changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
> : > SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
> : > in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
> : > to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
> : >
> : > I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
> : > the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
> : > but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
> : > we'd expect/like.
> : >
> : >
> : > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a
> : > point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the
> : > dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use
> : > 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it
> : > make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather
> : > than backport?
> : >
> : > FWIW,
> : > Erick
> : >
> : > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : > Hey all,
> : >
> : > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> : > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> : > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
> : > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
> : >
> : > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> : > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> : > work on SOLR-14768!)
> : >
> : > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> : > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> : > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
> : > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> : > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> : > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
> : >
> : > Best,
> : >
> : > Jason
> : >
> : > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
> : >
> : > After checking, I think this fits the bill:
> : >
> : > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
> : >
> : > - Houston
> : >
> : > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual
> : > change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x,
> : > branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In
> : > the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the
> : > other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to
> : > happen.
> : >
> : > ~ David Smiley
> : > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> : > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> : >
> : >
> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
> : >
> : >
> : > do the 8.6.3 release.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > others mentioned above.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to
> : > wait one week?
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Best,
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Jason
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the
> : > back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it
> : > gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is
> : > released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the
> : > RMs and community.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed
> : > SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I
> : > introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over.
> : > It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > ~ David Smiley
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Hi all,
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > of the bigger changes in 8.7
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Best,
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Jason
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > --
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Anshum Gupta
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > --
> : >
> : >
> : > Regards,
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Atri
> : >
> : >
> : > Apache Concerted
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : >
> : >
> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> : > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> : >
> : >
> :
>
> -Hoss
> http://www.lucidworks.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
Jason: This is the first time I recall seeing release note pages in
Confluence with a "DRAFT-" prefix. And I also see that Atri has follow-ed
suit (following your lead, no doubt) for 8.6. Why? Looking at the page
navigation, it's clearly an oddity -- a change. And it's still DRAFT
despite it being released.

~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley


On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
> someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
> chance? Would appreciate the review.
>
> 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
> bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
> Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene
> level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
> indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
> attention to, if someone can check my wording there.
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> [2]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
> > SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended
> > up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
> > suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
> > otherwise leave it as-is.
> >
> > So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
> > Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it
> seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a
> Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
> > >
> > > Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re
> waiting for before starting the RC?
> > > On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <
> gerlowskija@gmail.com>, wrote:
> > >
> > > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going
> to 8.7 when it’e released?
> > >
> > >
> > > The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
> > > latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
> > > features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
> > > changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
> > > SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
> > > in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
> > > to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
> > >
> > > I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
> > > the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
> > > but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
> > > we'd expect/like.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <
> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a
> point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the
> dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use
> 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it
> make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather
> than backport?
> > >
> > > FWIW,
> > > Erick
> > >
> > > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey all,
> > >
> > > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> > > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> > > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
> > > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
> > >
> > > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> > > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> > > work on SOLR-14768!)
> > >
> > > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> > > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> > > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
> > > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> > > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> > > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <
> houstonputman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
> > >
> > > After checking, I think this fits the bill:
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
> > >
> > > - Houston
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an
> individual change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master,
> branch_8x, branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the
> other two. In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync
> CHANGES.txt on the other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make
> sense for that to happen.
> > >
> > > ~ David Smiley
> > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
> > >
> > >
> > > do the 8.6.3 release.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > others mentioned above.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really
> need to wait one week?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the
> back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it
> gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is
> released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the
> RMs and community.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed
> SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I
> introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over.
> It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~ David Smiley
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <
> gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > of the bigger changes in 8.7
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anshum Gupta
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Atri
> > >
> > >
> > > Apache Concerted
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
I added it since it looked a safe way to indicate that the draft notes
are in progress and should not be referred to in case somebody is
surfing the release notes.

Atri

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 6:23 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Jason: This is the first time I recall seeing release note pages in Confluence with a "DRAFT-" prefix. And I also see that Atri has follow-ed suit (following your lead, no doubt) for 8.6. Why? Looking at the page navigation, it's clearly an oddity -- a change. And it's still DRAFT despite it being released.
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
>> someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
>> chance? Would appreciate the review.
>>
>> 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
>> bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
>> Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene
>> level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
>> indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
>> attention to, if someone can check my wording there.
>>
>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
>> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
>> > SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended
>> > up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
>> > suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
>> > otherwise leave it as-is.
>> >
>> > So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
>> > Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
>> > >
>> > > Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting for before starting the RC?
>> > > On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>, wrote:
>> > >
>> > > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
>> > > latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
>> > > features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
>> > > changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
>> > > SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
>> > > in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
>> > > to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
>> > >
>> > > I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
>> > > the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
>> > > but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
>> > > we'd expect/like.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather than backport?
>> > >
>> > > FWIW,
>> > > Erick
>> > >
>> > > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hey all,
>> > >
>> > > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
>> > > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
>> > > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
>> > > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
>> > >
>> > > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
>> > > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
>> > > work on SOLR-14768!)
>> > >
>> > > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
>> > > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
>> > > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
>> > > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
>> > > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
>> > > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
>> > >
>> > > Best,
>> > >
>> > > Jason
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
>> > >
>> > > After checking, I think this fits the bill:
>> > > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
>> > >
>> > > - Houston
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x, branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to happen.
>> > >
>> > > ~ David Smiley
>> > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > do the 8.6.3 release.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > others mentioned above.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to wait one week?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Best,
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Jason
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the RMs and community.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over. It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ~ David Smiley
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > of the bigger changes in 8.7
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Best,
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Jason
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Anshum Gupta
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Atri
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Apache Concerted
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>


--
Regards,

Atri
Apache Concerted

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
That’s a fair thing to consider, but does it really matter if someone looks at the draft notes pre-release? What would be the harm if users happen across them before they’re done?

(And to David’s point, it’s not in the RM steps to fix the page name after release, so it’s pretty easy to forget to do it.)
On Oct 22, 2020, 8:31 AM -0500, Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org>, wrote:
> I added it since it looked a safe way to indicate that the draft notes
> are in progress and should not be referred to in case somebody is
> surfing the release notes.
>
> Atri
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 6:23 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Jason: This is the first time I recall seeing release note pages in Confluence with a "DRAFT-" prefix. And I also see that Atri has follow-ed suit (following your lead, no doubt) for 8.6. Why? Looking at the page navigation, it's clearly an oddity -- a change. And it's still DRAFT despite it being released.
> >
> > ~ David Smiley
> > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
> > > someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
> > > chance? Would appreciate the review.
> > >
> > > 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
> > > bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
> > > Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene
> > > level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
> > > indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
> > > attention to, if someone can check my wording there.
> > >
> > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> > > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
> > > > SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended
> > > > up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
> > > > suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
> > > > otherwise leave it as-is.
> > > >
> > > > So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
> > > > Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting for before starting the RC?
> > > > > On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>, wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
> > > > > latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
> > > > > features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
> > > > > changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
> > > > > SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
> > > > > in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
> > > > > to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
> > > > > the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
> > > > > but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
> > > > > we'd expect/like.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather than backport?
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW,
> > > > > Erick
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> > > > > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> > > > > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
> > > > > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
> > > > >
> > > > > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> > > > > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> > > > > work on SOLR-14768!)
> > > > >
> > > > > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> > > > > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> > > > > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
> > > > > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> > > > > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> > > > > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jason
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
> > > > >
> > > > > After checking, I think this fits the bill:
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
> > > > >
> > > > > - Houston
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x, branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > ~ David Smiley
> > > > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > do the 8.6.3 release.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > others mentioned above.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to wait one week?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jason
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the RMs and community.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over. It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ~ David Smiley
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > of the bigger changes in 8.7
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jason
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Anshum Gupta
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Atri
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Apache Concerted
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Atri
> Apache Concerted
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
Fair point -- I have changed accordingly.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 7:09 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That’s a fair thing to consider, but does it really matter if someone looks at the draft notes pre-release? What would be the harm if users happen across them before they’re done?
>
> (And to David’s point, it’s not in the RM steps to fix the page name after release, so it’s pretty easy to forget to do it.)
> On Oct 22, 2020, 8:31 AM -0500, Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org>, wrote:
>
> I added it since it looked a safe way to indicate that the draft notes
> are in progress and should not be referred to in case somebody is
> surfing the release notes.
>
> Atri
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 6:23 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Jason: This is the first time I recall seeing release note pages in Confluence with a "DRAFT-" prefix. And I also see that Atri has follow-ed suit (following your lead, no doubt) for 8.6. Why? Looking at the page navigation, it's clearly an oddity -- a change. And it's still DRAFT despite it being released.
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
> someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
> chance? Would appreciate the review.
>
> 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
> bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
> Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene
> level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
> indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
> attention to, if someone can check my wording there.
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
> SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended
> up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
> suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
> otherwise leave it as-is.
>
> So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
> Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
>
> Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting for before starting the RC?
> On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>, wrote:
>
> That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released?
>
>
> The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
> latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
> features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
> changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
> SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
> in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
> to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
>
> I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
> the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
> but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
> we'd expect/like.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather than backport?
>
> FWIW,
> Erick
>
> On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
> (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
>
> So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> work on SOLR-14768!)
>
> Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
> to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
>
> Best,
>
> Jason
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
>
> After checking, I think this fits the bill:
> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
>
> - Houston
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x, branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to happen.
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
>
>
> do the 8.6.3 release.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
>
>
>
> then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
>
>
>
> My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
>
>
>
> proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
>
>
>
> others mentioned above.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to wait one week?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
>
>
>
> others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
>
>
>
> to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the RMs and community.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over. It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~ David Smiley
>
>
>
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>
>
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
>
>
>
> problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
>
>
>
> 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
>
>
>
> of the bigger changes in 8.7
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
>
>
>
> chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
>
>
>
> to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
>
>
>
> have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Anshum Gupta
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Atri
>
>
> Apache Concerted
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Atri
> Apache Concerted
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>


--
Regards,

Atri
Apache Concerted

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
I added that "DRAFT-" prefix mostly for the reason Atri mentioned: to
indicate that the page was a WIP. I thought it might also have the
side benefit of catching the eye of any committers who had Confluence
open and a few minutes to review the content. The page still has
"DRAFT-" because, as Cassandra suspected, I forgot to update it once
the release was finished. Fixing now.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 9:47 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Fair point -- I have changed accordingly.
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 7:09 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > That’s a fair thing to consider, but does it really matter if someone looks at the draft notes pre-release? What would be the harm if users happen across them before they’re done?
> >
> > (And to David’s point, it’s not in the RM steps to fix the page name after release, so it’s pretty easy to forget to do it.)
> > On Oct 22, 2020, 8:31 AM -0500, Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org>, wrote:
> >
> > I added it since it looked a safe way to indicate that the draft notes
> > are in progress and should not be referred to in case somebody is
> > surfing the release notes.
> >
> > Atri
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 6:23 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jason: This is the first time I recall seeing release note pages in Confluence with a "DRAFT-" prefix. And I also see that Atri has follow-ed suit (following your lead, no doubt) for 8.6. Why? Looking at the page navigation, it's clearly an oddity -- a change. And it's still DRAFT despite it being released.
> >
> > ~ David Smiley
> > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
> > someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
> > chance? Would appreciate the review.
> >
> > 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
> > bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
> > Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene
> > level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
> > indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
> > attention to, if someone can check my wording there.
> >
> > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
> > SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended
> > up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
> > suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
> > otherwise leave it as-is.
> >
> > So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
> > Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
> >
> > Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting for before starting the RC?
> > On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>, wrote:
> >
> > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released?
> >
> >
> > The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
> > latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
> > features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
> > changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
> > SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
> > in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
> > to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
> >
> > I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
> > the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
> > but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
> > we'd expect/like.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather than backport?
> >
> > FWIW,
> > Erick
> >
> > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
> > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
> >
> > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> > work on SOLR-14768!)
> >
> > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
> > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
> >
> > After checking, I think this fits the bill:
> > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
> >
> > - Houston
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x, branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to happen.
> >
> > ~ David Smiley
> > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
> >
> >
> > do the 8.6.3 release.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
> >
> >
> >
> > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
> >
> >
> >
> > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
> >
> >
> >
> > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
> >
> >
> >
> > others mentioned above.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to wait one week?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
> >
> >
> >
> > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
> >
> >
> >
> > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the RMs and community.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over. It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ~ David Smiley
> >
> >
> >
> > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> >
> >
> >
> > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> >
> >
> >
> > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
> >
> >
> >
> > of the bigger changes in 8.7
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
> >
> >
> >
> > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> >
> >
> >
> > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> >
> >
> >
> > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > Anshum Gupta
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Atri
> >
> >
> > Apache Concerted
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Atri
> > Apache Concerted
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Atri
> Apache Concerted
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
On the topic - is there a particular reason behind the convention of
having the page titles be named without spaces or periods? As is they
look more like Java classnames than page titles. e.g.
"ReleaseNote852" vs "Release Notes: 8.5.2" vs. "8.5.2 Release Notes"

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 9:50 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I added that "DRAFT-" prefix mostly for the reason Atri mentioned: to
> indicate that the page was a WIP. I thought it might also have the
> side benefit of catching the eye of any committers who had Confluence
> open and a few minutes to review the content. The page still has
> "DRAFT-" because, as Cassandra suspected, I forgot to update it once
> the release was finished. Fixing now.
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 9:47 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Fair point -- I have changed accordingly.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 7:09 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > That’s a fair thing to consider, but does it really matter if someone looks at the draft notes pre-release? What would be the harm if users happen across them before they’re done?
> > >
> > > (And to David’s point, it’s not in the RM steps to fix the page name after release, so it’s pretty easy to forget to do it.)
> > > On Oct 22, 2020, 8:31 AM -0500, Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org>, wrote:
> > >
> > > I added it since it looked a safe way to indicate that the draft notes
> > > are in progress and should not be referred to in case somebody is
> > > surfing the release notes.
> > >
> > > Atri
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 6:23 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Jason: This is the first time I recall seeing release note pages in Confluence with a "DRAFT-" prefix. And I also see that Atri has follow-ed suit (following your lead, no doubt) for 8.6. Why? Looking at the page navigation, it's clearly an oddity -- a change. And it's still DRAFT despite it being released.
> > >
> > > ~ David Smiley
> > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
> > > someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
> > > chance? Would appreciate the review.
> > >
> > > 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
> > > bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
> > > Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene
> > > level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
> > > indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
> > > attention to, if someone can check my wording there.
> > >
> > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> > > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
> > > SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it ended
> > > up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
> > > suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
> > > otherwise leave it as-is.
> > >
> > > So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
> > > Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <casstargett@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
> > >
> > > Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re waiting for before starting the RC?
> > > On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>, wrote:
> > >
> > > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released?
> > >
> > >
> > > The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
> > > latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
> > > features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions, breaking
> > > changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
> > > SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
> > > in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
> > > to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
> > >
> > > I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
> > > the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
> > > but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far as
> > > we'd expect/like.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in a point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather than backport?
> > >
> > > FWIW,
> > > Erick
> > >
> > > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey all,
> > >
> > > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> > > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> > > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse bug
> > > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once triggered.
> > >
> > > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> > > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> > > work on SOLR-14768!)
> > >
> > > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> > > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> > > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied directly
> > > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> > > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> > > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
> > >
> > > After checking, I think this fits the bill:
> > > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
> > >
> > > - Houston
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an individual change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master, branch_8x, branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the other two. In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync CHANGES.txt on the other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make sense for that to happen.
> > >
> > > ~ David Smiley
> > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom to
> > >
> > >
> > > do the 8.6.3 release.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as possible.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > others mentioned above.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really need to wait one week?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3 is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for the RMs and community.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over. It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~ David Smiley
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for some
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > of the bigger changes in 8.7
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others a
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes out?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anshum Gupta
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Atri
> > >
> > >
> > > Apache Concerted
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Atri
> > > Apache Concerted
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Atri
> > Apache Concerted
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
I guess some convention due to MoinMoin?

On Thu, 22 Oct, 2020, 7:25 pm Jason Gerlowski, <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On the topic - is there a particular reason behind the convention of
> having the page titles be named without spaces or periods? As is they
> look more like Java classnames than page titles. e.g.
> "ReleaseNote852" vs "Release Notes: 8.5.2" vs. "8.5.2 Release Notes"
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 9:50 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I added that "DRAFT-" prefix mostly for the reason Atri mentioned: to
> > indicate that the page was a WIP. I thought it might also have the
> > side benefit of catching the eye of any committers who had Confluence
> > open and a few minutes to review the content. The page still has
> > "DRAFT-" because, as Cassandra suspected, I forgot to update it once
> > the release was finished. Fixing now.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 9:47 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Fair point -- I have changed accordingly.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 7:09 PM Cassandra Targett <
> casstargett@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That’s a fair thing to consider, but does it really matter if
> someone looks at the draft notes pre-release? What would be the harm if
> users happen across them before they’re done?
> > > >
> > > > (And to David’s point, it’s not in the RM steps to fix the page name
> after release, so it’s pretty easy to forget to do it.)
> > > > On Oct 22, 2020, 8:31 AM -0500, Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org>,
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I added it since it looked a safe way to indicate that the draft
> notes
> > > > are in progress and should not be referred to in case somebody is
> > > > surfing the release notes.
> > > >
> > > > Atri
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 6:23 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jason: This is the first time I recall seeing release note pages in
> Confluence with a "DRAFT-" prefix. And I also see that Atri has follow-ed
> suit (following your lead, no doubt) for 8.6. Why? Looking at the page
> navigation, it's clearly an oddity -- a change. And it's still DRAFT
> despite it being released.
> > > >
> > > > ~ David Smiley
> > > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jason Gerlowski <
> gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
> > > > someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
> > > > chance? Would appreciate the review.
> > > >
> > > > 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
> > > > bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
> > > > Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the Lucene
> > > > level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
> > > > indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
> > > > attention to, if someone can check my wording there.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> > > > [2]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <
> gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
> > > > SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it
> ended
> > > > up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
> > > > suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
> > > > otherwise leave it as-is.
> > > >
> > > > So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
> > > > Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <
> casstargett@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it
> seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a
> Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
> > > >
> > > > Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re
> waiting for before starting the RC?
> > > > On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <
> gerlowskija@gmail.com>, wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going
> to 8.7 when it’e released?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
> > > > latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
> > > > features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions,
> breaking
> > > > changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
> > > > SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
> > > > in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
> > > > to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
> > > >
> > > > I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said above
> > > > the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end -
> > > > but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far
> as
> > > > we'd expect/like.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <
> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency in
> a point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the
> dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use
> 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it
> make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather
> than backport?
> > > >
> > > > FWIW,
> > > > Erick
> > > >
> > > > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey all,
> > > >
> > > > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
> > > > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
> > > > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse
> bug
> > > > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once
> triggered.
> > > >
> > > > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
> > > > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
> > > > work on SOLR-14768!)
> > > >
> > > > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
> > > > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
> > > > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied
> directly
> > > > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
> > > > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
> > > > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Jason
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <
> houstonputman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
> > > >
> > > > After checking, I think this fits the bill:
> > > >
> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
> > > >
> > > > - Houston
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an
> individual change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master,
> branch_8x, branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the
> other two. In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync
> CHANGES.txt on the other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make
> sense for that to happen.
> > > >
> > > > ~ David Smiley
> > > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom
> to
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > do the 8.6.3 release.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <
> gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as
> possible.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > others mentioned above.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really
> need to wait one week?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jason
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to
> the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and
> it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3
> is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for
> the RMs and community.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed
> SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I
> introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over.
> It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ~ David Smiley
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <
> gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for
> some
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > of the bigger changes in 8.7
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give others
> a
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an RC
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes
> out?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jason
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Anshum Gupta
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Atri
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Apache Concerted
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Atri
> > > > Apache Concerted
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Atri
> > > Apache Concerted
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: 8.6.3 Release [ In reply to ]
I don't think the status of any page should be in the name of the page --
it breaks links when it changes. The status can be at the top of the
content.

~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley


On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 10:55 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess some convention due to MoinMoin?
>
> On Thu, 22 Oct, 2020, 7:25 pm Jason Gerlowski, <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On the topic - is there a particular reason behind the convention of
>> having the page titles be named without spaces or periods? As is they
>> look more like Java classnames than page titles. e.g.
>> "ReleaseNote852" vs "Release Notes: 8.5.2" vs. "8.5.2 Release Notes"
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 9:50 AM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I added that "DRAFT-" prefix mostly for the reason Atri mentioned: to
>> > indicate that the page was a WIP. I thought it might also have the
>> > side benefit of catching the eye of any committers who had Confluence
>> > open and a few minutes to review the content. The page still has
>> > "DRAFT-" because, as Cassandra suspected, I forgot to update it once
>> > the release was finished. Fixing now.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 9:47 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Fair point -- I have changed accordingly.
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 7:09 PM Cassandra Targett <
>> casstargett@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > That’s a fair thing to consider, but does it really matter if
>> someone looks at the draft notes pre-release? What would be the harm if
>> users happen across them before they’re done?
>> > > >
>> > > > (And to David’s point, it’s not in the RM steps to fix the page
>> name after release, so it’s pretty easy to forget to do it.)
>> > > > On Oct 22, 2020, 8:31 AM -0500, Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org>,
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I added it since it looked a safe way to indicate that the draft
>> notes
>> > > > are in progress and should not be referred to in case somebody is
>> > > > surfing the release notes.
>> > > >
>> > > > Atri
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 6:23 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Jason: This is the first time I recall seeing release note pages in
>> Confluence with a "DRAFT-" prefix. And I also see that Atri has follow-ed
>> suit (following your lead, no doubt) for 8.6. Why? Looking at the page
>> navigation, it's clearly an oddity -- a change. And it's still DRAFT
>> despite it being released.
>> > > >
>> > > > ~ David Smiley
>> > > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>> > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jason Gerlowski <
>> gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I've put together draft Release Notes for 8.6.3 here. [1] [2]. Can
>> > > > someone please sanity check the summaries there when they get a
>> > > > chance? Would appreciate the review.
>> > > >
>> > > > 8.6.3 is a bit interesting in that Lucene has no changes in this
>> > > > bugfix release. As a result I had to omit the standard phrase in the
>> > > > Solr release notes about there being additional changes at the
>> Lucene
>> > > > level, and change some of the wording in the Lucene announcement to
>> > > > indicate the lack of changes. So that's something to pay particular
>> > > > attention to, if someone can check my wording there.
>> > > >
>> > > > [1]
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SOLR/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
>> > > > [2]
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/DRAFT-ReleaseNote863
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:57 AM Jason Gerlowski <
>> gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > The only one that was previously mentioned as a blocker was
>> > > > SOLR-14835, but from the comments on the ticket it looks like it
>> ended
>> > > > up being purely a cosmetic issue. Andrzej left a comment there
>> > > > suggesting that we "address" this with documentation for 8.6.3 but
>> > > > otherwise leave it as-is.
>> > > >
>> > > > So it looks like we're unblocked on starting the release process.
>> > > > Will begin the preliminary steps this afternoon.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Cassandra Targett <
>> casstargett@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > It looks to me like everything for 8.6.3 is resolved now (
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12348713), and it
>> seems from comments in SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 that those fixes make a
>> Jetty upgrade less compelling to try.
>> > > >
>> > > > Are there any other issues not currently marked for 8.6.3 we’re
>> waiting for before starting the RC?
>> > > > On Sep 29, 2020, 12:04 PM -0500, Jason Gerlowski <
>> gerlowskija@gmail.com>, wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > That said, if someone can use 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from
>> going to 8.7 when it’e released?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > The same things that always stop users from going directly to the
>> > > > latest-and-greatest: fear of instability from new minor-release
>> > > > features, reliance on behavior changed across minor versions,
>> breaking
>> > > > changes on Lucene elements that don't guarantee backcompat (e.g.
>> > > > SOLR-14254), security issues in later versions (new libraries pulled
>> > > > in with vulns), etc. There's lots of reasons a given user might want
>> > > > to stick on 8.6.x rather than 8.7 (in the short/medium term).
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm ambivalent to whether we upgrade Jetty in 8.6.3 - as I said
>> above
>> > > > the worst of the Jetty issue should be mitigated by work on our end
>> -
>> > > > but I think there's a lot of reasons users might not upgrade as far
>> as
>> > > > we'd expect/like.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson <
>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > For me, there’s a sharp distinction between changing a dependency
>> in a point release just because there’s a new version, and changing the
>> dependency because there’s a bug in it. That said, if someone can use
>> 8.6.3, what’s stopping them from going to 8.7 when it’e released? Would it
>> make more sense to do the upgrades for 8.7 and get that out the door rather
>> than backport?
>> > > >
>> > > > FWIW,
>> > > > Erick
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sep 28, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowskija@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Hey all,
>> > > >
>> > > > I wanted to add 2 more blocker tickets to the list: SOLR-14897 and
>> > > > SOLR-14898. These tickets (while bad bugs in their own right) are
>> > > > especially necessary because they work around a Jetty buffer-reuse
>> bug
>> > > > (see SOLR-14896) that causes sporadic request failures once
>> triggered.
>> > > >
>> > > > So that brings the list of 8.6.3 blockers up to: SOLR-14850,
>> > > > SOLR-14835, SOLR-14897, and SOLR-14898. (Thanks David for the quick
>> > > > work on SOLR-14768!)
>> > > >
>> > > > Additionally, should we also consider a Jetty upgrade for 8.6.3 in
>> > > > light of the issue mentioned above? I know it's atypical for bug-fix
>> > > > releases to change deps, but here the bug is serious and tied
>> directly
>> > > > to the dep. SOLR-14897 and SOLR-14898 help greatly here, but the
>> > > > Jetty bug is likely still a problem for users making requests that
>> > > > match a specific (albeit rare) profile. Anyone have thoughts?
>> > > >
>> > > > Best,
>> > > >
>> > > > Jason
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:28 AM Houston Putman <
>> houstonputman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > If I recall correctly, thats a step in the release wizard.
>> > > >
>> > > > After checking, I think this fits the bill:
>> > > >
>> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/dev-tools/scripts/releaseWizard.yaml#L1435
>> > > >
>> > > > - Houston
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > When moving changes from 8.7 to 8.6.3, must we (the mover of an
>> individual change) move the CHANGES.txt entry on all branches -- master,
>> branch_8x, branch_8_6? I expect the release branch but am unsure of the
>> other two. In the past I have but it's annoying. Does the RM sync
>> CHANGES.txt on the other branches in one go? If not, I think it'd make
>> sense for that to happen.
>> > > >
>> > > > ~ David Smiley
>> > > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>> > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:22 AM Atri Sharma <atri@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I will push the 8.7 release by a week to give Jason enough headroom
>> to
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > do the 8.6.3 release.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Jason, let me know if you need me to assist on the 8.6.3 release.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:23 PM Jason Gerlowski <
>> gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > OK, in that case I'll try my best to keep the 8.6.3 process moving
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > then, so Atri can stick as close to his proposed schedule as
>> possible.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > My apologies - I didn't realize I'd be putting the brakes on 8.7 by
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > proposing a bug-fix release. But the reasons make sense given what
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > others mentioned above.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > As branch_8_6 should be pretty stable by now I wonder if we really
>> need to wait one week?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > There's no special reason on my end. I suggested a week to give
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > others time to backport anything they wanted included, but I'm happy
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > to start the process as soon as all the expected changes land.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Best,
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Jason
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 AM Anshum Gupta <
>> anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Simultaneous releases are also confusing for users, in addition to
>> the back-compat tests as our website chronologically lists our releases and
>> it gets complicated for someone reading the 'News' page.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > As 8.7 isn't a release that needs to be rushed, waiting until 8.6.3
>> is released and back-compat indexes are pushed will make things easier for
>> the RMs and community.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:43 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Jason: Thanks for volunteering to do an 8.6.3! I recently fixed
>> SOLR-14768, multipart HTTP POST was broken in 8.6 (a regression I
>> introduced). If you can't do the release or need help, I will take over.
>> It's the least I can offer in repentance for the regression.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ~ David Smiley
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:07 AM Jason Gerlowski <
>> gerlowskija@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi all,
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I ran into a query-parsing bug recently in SOLR-14859 that caused
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > problems for some of my usecases. I wanted to volunteer as RM for an
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 8.6.3 to get a bugfix release out for users that aren't ready for
>> some
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > of the bigger changes in 8.7
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I was thinking of cutting the branch in a week's time to give
>> others a
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > chance to backport any bug-fixes they might want included, with an
>> RC
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > to follow shortly. Does anyone have any concerns with that plan, or
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > have anything they'd like to fix or backport before an 8.6.3 goes
>> out?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Best,
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Jason
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Anshum Gupta
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Atri
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Apache Concerted
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > >
>> > > > Atri
>> > > > Apache Concerted
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Regards,
>> > >
>> > > Atri
>> > > Apache Concerted
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> > >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>