Mailing List Archive

Thanks so much for organizing this Anshum! We are much overdue.

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


On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:17 PM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:

> Hi committers,
>
> I'd like to organize a virtual Lucene/Solr committer meeting this month
> with an intention to discuss the plan for 9.0 release, and the subsequent
> creation of the Solr TLP. I've started a confluence page to organize the
> agenda for this -
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/2021-01+Committer+Meeting
>
>
> I'll share a link to the "Doodle Poll" to figure out a time that suits
> most of us. You'll be able to find a link to the poll on #lucene-dev and
> #solr-dev channels on the ASF Slack. Please email me to ask for the link if
> you are a committer who isn't on Slack and would like to participate.
>
> For this virtual committer meeting and future ones:
>
> - This is in the spirit of committer meetings co-located with
> conferences. ASF policy says that no "decisions" can be made in such a
> venue. We make decisions on this dev list and indirectly via JIRA out in
> the open and with the opportunity for anyone to comment.
> - Who: Committer-only
> - Video chat with option of audio dial-in. This time I will use
> Google Hangout but open to using something else.
> - I wouldn't be recording this, but would provide detailed meeting
> notes that I can share with everyone who signs up.
> - Published notes: I (or someone) will take written meeting notes
> that are ultimately published for anyone to see (not restricted to those
> invited). They will be transmitted to the dev list.
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>

I would like to explicitly propose that we do not attempt to bring up the
Solr reference impl branch, since I'm reasonably sure that will take up a
full hour by itself. I chatted with Mark about it this morning, and he said
he's working on a wiki page and then we can take it from there (next
meeting, next month?)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:31 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:

> Thanks so much for organizing this Anshum! We are much overdue.
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:17 PM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi committers,
>>
>> I'd like to organize a virtual Lucene/Solr committer meeting this month
>> with an intention to discuss the plan for 9.0 release, and the subsequent
>> creation of the Solr TLP. I've started a confluence page to organize the
>> agenda for this -
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/2021-01+Committer+Meeting
>>
>>
>> I'll share a link to the "Doodle Poll" to figure out a time that suits
>> most of us. You'll be able to find a link to the poll on #lucene-dev and
>> #solr-dev channels on the ASF Slack. Please email me to ask for the link if
>> you are a committer who isn't on Slack and would like to participate.
>>
>> For this virtual committer meeting and future ones:
>>
>> - This is in the spirit of committer meetings co-located with
>> conferences. ASF policy says that no "decisions" can be made in such a
>> venue. We make decisions on this dev list and indirectly via JIRA out in
>> the open and with the opportunity for anyone to comment.
>> - Who: Committer-only
>> - Video chat with option of audio dial-in. This time I will use
>> Google Hangout but open to using something else.
>> - I wouldn't be recording this, but would provide detailed meeting
>> notes that I can share with everyone who signs up.
>> - Published notes: I (or someone) will take written meeting notes
>> that are ultimately published for anyone to see (not restricted to those
>> invited). They will be transmitted to the dev list.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta
>>
>

+1 :)

Also, just a reminder for folks to put up the topics they want to discuss,
preferably with the time needed on the confluence page linked above.

Nevermind, here it is again -
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/2021-01+Committer+Meeting


On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:23 AM Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> wrote:

> I would like to explicitly propose that we do not attempt to bring up the
> Solr reference impl branch, since I'm reasonably sure that will take up a
> full hour by itself. I chatted with Mark about it this morning, and he said
> he's working on a wiki page and then we can take it from there (next
> meeting, next month?)
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:31 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks so much for organizing this Anshum! We are much overdue.
>>
>> ~ David Smiley
>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:17 PM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi committers,
>>>
>>> I'd like to organize a virtual Lucene/Solr committer meeting this month
>>> with an intention to discuss the plan for 9.0 release, and the subsequent
>>> creation of the Solr TLP. I've started a confluence page to organize the
>>> agenda for this -
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/2021-01+Committer+Meeting
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll share a link to the "Doodle Poll" to figure out a time that suits
>>> most of us. You'll be able to find a link to the poll on #lucene-dev and
>>> #solr-dev channels on the ASF Slack. Please email me to ask for the link if
>>> you are a committer who isn't on Slack and would like to participate.
>>>
>>> For this virtual committer meeting and future ones:
>>>
>>> - This is in the spirit of committer meetings co-located with
>>> conferences. ASF policy says that no "decisions" can be made in such a
>>> venue. We make decisions on this dev list and indirectly via JIRA out in
>>> the open and with the opportunity for anyone to comment.
>>> - Who: Committer-only
>>> - Video chat with option of audio dial-in. This time I will use
>>> Google Hangout but open to using something else.
>>> - I wouldn't be recording this, but would provide detailed meeting
>>> notes that I can share with everyone who signs up.
>>> - Published notes: I (or someone) will take written meeting notes
>>> that are ultimately published for anyone to see (not restricted to those
>>> invited). They will be transmitted to the dev list.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>
>>

--
Anshum Gupta

What good are these meetings if the most important issues concerning the
community are off limits?

On Thu, 7 Jan, 2021, 11:38 pm Anshum Gupta, <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:

> +1 :)
>
> Also, just a reminder for folks to put up the topics they want to discuss,
> preferably with the time needed on the confluence page linked above.
>
> Nevermind, here it is again -
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/2021-01+Committer+Meeting
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:23 AM Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I would like to explicitly propose that we do not attempt to bring up the
>> Solr reference impl branch, since I'm reasonably sure that will take up a
>> full hour by itself. I chatted with Mark about it this morning, and he said
>> he's working on a wiki page and then we can take it from there (next
>> meeting, next month?)
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:31 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks so much for organizing this Anshum! We are much overdue.
>>>
>>> ~ David Smiley
>>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:17 PM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi committers,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to organize a virtual Lucene/Solr committer meeting this month
>>>> with an intention to discuss the plan for 9.0 release, and the subsequent
>>>> creation of the Solr TLP. I've started a confluence page to organize the
>>>> agenda for this -
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/2021-01+Committer+Meeting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll share a link to the "Doodle Poll" to figure out a time that suits
>>>> most of us. You'll be able to find a link to the poll on #lucene-dev and
>>>> #solr-dev channels on the ASF Slack. Please email me to ask for the link if
>>>> you are a committer who isn't on Slack and would like to participate.
>>>>
>>>> For this virtual committer meeting and future ones:
>>>>
>>>> - This is in the spirit of committer meetings co-located with
>>>> conferences. ASF policy says that no "decisions" can be made in such a
>>>> venue. We make decisions on this dev list and indirectly via JIRA out in
>>>> the open and with the opportunity for anyone to comment.
>>>> - Who: Committer-only
>>>> - Video chat with option of audio dial-in. This time I will use
>>>> Google Hangout but open to using something else.
>>>> - I wouldn't be recording this, but would provide detailed meeting
>>>> notes that I can share with everyone who signs up.
>>>> - Published notes: I (or someone) will take written meeting notes
>>>> that are ultimately published for anyone to see (not restricted to those
>>>> invited). They will be transmitted to the dev list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>

I agree with Mike, the ref-branch is a topic that will take much more than
an hour.
I don't think the idea is to limit discussion around the ref-branch, but
instead to separate it out so that other topics are given the time that
they need.

- Houston

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:08 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:

> What good are these meetings if the most important issues concerning the
> community are off limits?
>
> On Thu, 7 Jan, 2021, 11:38 pm Anshum Gupta, <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 :)
>>
>> Also, just a reminder for folks to put up the topics they want to
>> discuss, preferably with the time needed on the confluence page linked
>> above.
>>
>> Nevermind, here it is again -
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/2021-01+Committer+Meeting
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:23 AM Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to explicitly propose that we do not attempt to bring up
>>> the Solr reference impl branch, since I'm reasonably sure that will take up
>>> a full hour by itself. I chatted with Mark about it this morning, and he
>>> said he's working on a wiki page and then we can take it from there (next
>>> meeting, next month?)
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:31 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks so much for organizing this Anshum! We are much overdue.
>>>>
>>>> ~ David Smiley
>>>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:17 PM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi committers,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to organize a virtual Lucene/Solr committer meeting this
>>>>> month with an intention to discuss the plan for 9.0 release, and the
>>>>> subsequent creation of the Solr TLP. I've started a confluence page to
>>>>> organize the agenda for this -
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/2021-01+Committer+Meeting
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll share a link to the "Doodle Poll" to figure out a time that suits
>>>>> most of us. You'll be able to find a link to the poll on #lucene-dev and
>>>>> #solr-dev channels on the ASF Slack. Please email me to ask for the link if
>>>>> you are a committer who isn't on Slack and would like to participate.
>>>>>
>>>>> For this virtual committer meeting and future ones:
>>>>>
>>>>> - This is in the spirit of committer meetings co-located with
>>>>> conferences. ASF policy says that no "decisions" can be made in such a
>>>>> venue. We make decisions on this dev list and indirectly via JIRA out in
>>>>> the open and with the opportunity for anyone to comment.
>>>>> - Who: Committer-only
>>>>> - Video chat with option of audio dial-in. This time I will use
>>>>> Google Hangout but open to using something else.
>>>>> - I wouldn't be recording this, but would provide detailed meeting
>>>>> notes that I can share with everyone who signs up.
>>>>> - Published notes: I (or someone) will take written meeting notes
>>>>> that are ultimately published for anyone to see (not restricted to those
>>>>> invited). They will be transmitted to the dev list.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Anshum Gupta
>>
>

Can we plan a long overdue meeting to talk about nothing else but the
so-called reference branch? The topic isn't forbidden, but it'd take all
the oxygen out of the room to try to talk about that and anything else in
the same meeting.

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


On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:15 PM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I agree with Mike, the ref-branch is a topic that will take much more than
> an hour.
> I don't think the idea is to limit discussion around the ref-branch, but
> instead to separate it out so that other topics are given the time that
> they need.
>
> - Houston
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:08 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What good are these meetings if the most important issues concerning the
>> community are off limits?
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Jan, 2021, 11:38 pm Anshum Gupta, <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 :)
>>>
>>> Also, just a reminder for folks to put up the topics they want to
>>> discuss, preferably with the time needed on the confluence page linked
>>> above.
>>>
>>> Nevermind, here it is again -
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/2021-01+Committer+Meeting
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:23 AM Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would like to explicitly propose that we do not attempt to bring up
>>>> the Solr reference impl branch, since I'm reasonably sure that will take up
>>>> a full hour by itself. I chatted with Mark about it this morning, and he
>>>> said he's working on a wiki page and then we can take it from there (next
>>>> meeting, next month?)
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:31 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks so much for organizing this Anshum! We are much overdue.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~ David Smiley
>>>>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:17 PM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi committers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to organize a virtual Lucene/Solr committer meeting this
>>>>>> month with an intention to discuss the plan for 9.0 release, and the
>>>>>> subsequent creation of the Solr TLP. I've started a confluence page to
>>>>>> organize the agenda for this -
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/2021-01+Committer+Meeting
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll share a link to the "Doodle Poll" to figure out a time that
>>>>>> suits most of us. You'll be able to find a link to the poll on #lucene-dev
>>>>>> and #solr-dev channels on the ASF Slack. Please email me to ask for the
>>>>>> link if you are a committer who isn't on Slack and would like to
>>>>>> participate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For this virtual committer meeting and future ones:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - This is in the spirit of committer meetings co-located with
>>>>>> conferences. ASF policy says that no "decisions" can be made in such a
>>>>>> venue. We make decisions on this dev list and indirectly via JIRA out in
>>>>>> the open and with the opportunity for anyone to comment.
>>>>>> - Who: Committer-only
>>>>>> - Video chat with option of audio dial-in. This time I will use
>>>>>> Google Hangout but open to using something else.
>>>>>> - I wouldn't be recording this, but would provide detailed
>>>>>> meeting notes that I can share with everyone who signs up.
>>>>>> - Published notes: I (or someone) will take written meeting
>>>>>> notes that are ultimately published for anyone to see (not restricted to
>>>>>> those invited). They will be transmitted to the dev list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>
>>

Agree. That is what all of us intend to do, just that clubbing the
ref_branch discussion with this meeting will not leave us with the
bandwidth to discuss much else.

As Mike suggested, let's schedule another meeting to discuss specifically
the ref_branch and the intention around that.

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:55 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:

> Can we plan a long overdue meeting to talk about nothing else but the
> so-called reference branch? The topic isn't forbidden, but it'd take all
> the oxygen out of the room to try to talk about that and anything else in
> the same meeting.
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:15 PM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Mike, the ref-branch is a topic that will take much more
>> than an hour.
>> I don't think the idea is to limit discussion around the ref-branch, but
>> instead to separate it out so that other topics are given the time that
>> they need.
>>
>> - Houston
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:08 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What good are these meetings if the most important issues concerning the
>>> community are off limits?
>>>
>>> On Thu, 7 Jan, 2021, 11:38 pm Anshum Gupta, <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 :)
>>>>
>>>> Also, just a reminder for folks to put up the topics they want to
>>>> discuss, preferably with the time needed on the confluence page linked
>>>> above.
>>>>
>>>> Nevermind, here it is again -
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/2021-01+Committer+Meeting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:23 AM Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would like to explicitly propose that we do not attempt to bring up
>>>>> the Solr reference impl branch, since I'm reasonably sure that will take up
>>>>> a full hour by itself. I chatted with Mark about it this morning, and he
>>>>> said he's working on a wiki page and then we can take it from there (next
>>>>> meeting, next month?)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:31 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks so much for organizing this Anshum! We are much overdue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~ David Smiley
>>>>>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:17 PM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi committers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to organize a virtual Lucene/Solr committer meeting this
>>>>>>> month with an intention to discuss the plan for 9.0 release, and the
>>>>>>> subsequent creation of the Solr TLP. I've started a confluence page to
>>>>>>> organize the agenda for this -
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/2021-01+Committer+Meeting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll share a link to the "Doodle Poll" to figure out a time that
>>>>>>> suits most of us. You'll be able to find a link to the poll on #lucene-dev
>>>>>>> and #solr-dev channels on the ASF Slack. Please email me to ask for the
>>>>>>> link if you are a committer who isn't on Slack and would like to
>>>>>>> participate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For this virtual committer meeting and future ones:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - This is in the spirit of committer meetings co-located with
>>>>>>> conferences. ASF policy says that no "decisions" can be made in such a
>>>>>>> venue. We make decisions on this dev list and indirectly via JIRA out in
>>>>>>> the open and with the opportunity for anyone to comment.
>>>>>>> - Who: Committer-only
>>>>>>> - Video chat with option of audio dial-in. This time I will use
>>>>>>> Google Hangout but open to using something else.
>>>>>>> - I wouldn't be recording this, but would provide detailed
>>>>>>> meeting notes that I can share with everyone who signs up.
>>>>>>> - Published notes: I (or someone) will take written meeting
>>>>>>> notes that are ultimately published for anyone to see (not restricted to
>>>>>>> those invited). They will be transmitted to the dev list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>
>>>

--
Anshum Gupta

Perhaps there will be time at the end of this meeting (in 30min now) to
discuss "ref branch" stuff? Even if there's only 10min, I'd love to get an
update on that!
~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley


On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 6:51 PM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:

> Agree. That is what all of us intend to do, just that clubbing the
> ref_branch discussion with this meeting will not leave us with the
> bandwidth to discuss much else.
>
> As Mike suggested, let's schedule another meeting to discuss specifically
> the ref_branch and the intention around that.
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:55 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Can we plan a long overdue meeting to talk about nothing else but the
>> so-called reference branch? The topic isn't forbidden, but it'd take all
>> the oxygen out of the room to try to talk about that and anything else in
>> the same meeting.
>>
>> ~ David Smiley
>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:15 PM Houston Putman <houstonputman@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Mike, the ref-branch is a topic that will take much more
>>> than an hour.
>>> I don't think the idea is to limit discussion around the ref-branch, but
>>> instead to separate it out so that other topics are given the time that
>>> they need.
>>>
>>> - Houston
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:08 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What good are these meetings if the most important issues concerning
>>>> the community are off limits?
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan, 2021, 11:38 pm Anshum Gupta, <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, just a reminder for folks to put up the topics they want to
>>>>> discuss, preferably with the time needed on the confluence page linked
>>>>> above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nevermind, here it is again -
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/2021-01+Committer+Meeting
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:23 AM Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to explicitly propose that we do not attempt to bring up
>>>>>> the Solr reference impl branch, since I'm reasonably sure that will take up
>>>>>> a full hour by itself. I chatted with Mark about it this morning, and he
>>>>>> said he's working on a wiki page and then we can take it from there (next
>>>>>> meeting, next month?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:31 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks so much for organizing this Anshum! We are much overdue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ~ David Smiley
>>>>>>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:17 PM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi committers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like to organize a virtual Lucene/Solr committer meeting this
>>>>>>>> month with an intention to discuss the plan for 9.0 release, and the
>>>>>>>> subsequent creation of the Solr TLP. I've started a confluence page to
>>>>>>>> organize the agenda for this -
>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/2021-01+Committer+Meeting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll share a link to the "Doodle Poll" to figure out a time that
>>>>>>>> suits most of us. You'll be able to find a link to the poll on #lucene-dev
>>>>>>>> and #solr-dev channels on the ASF Slack. Please email me to ask for the
>>>>>>>> link if you are a committer who isn't on Slack and would like to
>>>>>>>> participate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For this virtual committer meeting and future ones:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - This is in the spirit of committer meetings co-located with
>>>>>>>> conferences. ASF policy says that no "decisions" can be made in such a
>>>>>>>> venue. We make decisions on this dev list and indirectly via JIRA out in
>>>>>>>> the open and with the opportunity for anyone to comment.
>>>>>>>> - Who: Committer-only
>>>>>>>> - Video chat with option of audio dial-in. This time I will
>>>>>>>> use Google Hangout but open to using something else.
>>>>>>>> - I wouldn't be recording this, but would provide detailed
>>>>>>>> meeting notes that I can share with everyone who signs up.
>>>>>>>> - Published notes: I (or someone) will take written meeting
>>>>>>>> notes that are ultimately published for anyone to see (not restricted to
>>>>>>>> those invited). They will be transmitted to the dev list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Anshum Gupta
>>>>>
>>>>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>

The notes are available on the confluence page for the meeting, and copied
here for posterity:


9.0 Release Planing

- Will release Lucene/Solr separately
- Vector work in Lucene, lots of work in Solr as well burning to be
released.
- 8.x releases could continue… (8.9 Solr depending on 8.8 Lucene?)
- Reminder that there are issues with new minors after a major release
(8.9 after a 9.0) - somebody to research.
- Action Item: Label as blockers any issues that MUST be resolved before
a release.
- Solr packages need an upgrade strategy (minor-minor, minor-major)
- May consider decoupling organizational change from code change.
- Release train keeps getting bigger and bigger?
- Action item: define critical path to releasing split code.


Solr TLP Creation

- Should happen before 9.0
- Ton of interest initially, but activity has since seemed to slow down
- Just more forward with everybody current on the PMC/Committer list?
- Several people claim that it “feels wrong” but difficult to articulate
the actual concerns
- Potential compromise is to mark folks as emeritus on website, while
still providing commit bit
- Auto-opt-in for anybody active in the past X years
- Smiley volunteered to reach out to all committers to ascertain
their desired relationship with Solr TLP.
- Important to have communication for restoring status for people who
may have been missed.
- …And then send board resolution
- Expect all of this to take ~month between vote and next board
meeting/report.


Solr Sandbox

- Isolation of components that need a separate release cadence
- Goal is to work and contribute directly to Apache (some companies have
issues with personal projects)
- Apache Commons had a “commons sandbox” with lower barrier to entry and
lower expectations
- Solr Extras, Solr Contrib, Solr Commons?
- First party packages should still live in the repo
- - example LTR?
- - example Streaming Expressions that could work with multiple versions
- Best candidates are contribs that “sit there” once they are done


Docker Image

- Post 9.0, plan to provide Docker images via solr repo instead of
docker-solr repo
- How is it going to be released - official image or apache image or ???
- Need to understand verification steps for “official” images
- Can we release at the same time (Release and Docker)
- Are these releasable according to ASF policy (source v binary)
- Likely need to be released to ASF org on docker hub.




On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:15 PM Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:

> Hi committers,
>
> I'd like to organize a virtual Lucene/Solr committer meeting this month
> with an intention to discuss the plan for 9.0 release, and the subsequent
> creation of the Solr TLP. I've started a confluence page to organize the
> agenda for this -
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENE/2021-01+Committer+Meeting
>
>
> I'll share a link to the "Doodle Poll" to figure out a time that suits
> most of us. You'll be able to find a link to the poll on #lucene-dev and
> #solr-dev channels on the ASF Slack. Please email me to ask for the link if
> you are a committer who isn't on Slack and would like to participate.
>
> For this virtual committer meeting and future ones:
>
> - This is in the spirit of committer meetings co-located with
> conferences. ASF policy says that no "decisions" can be made in such a
> venue. We make decisions on this dev list and indirectly via JIRA out in
> the open and with the opportunity for anyone to comment.
> - Who: Committer-only
> - Video chat with option of audio dial-in. This time I will use
> Google Hangout but open to using something else.
> - I wouldn't be recording this, but would provide detailed meeting
> notes that I can share with everyone who signs up.
> - Published notes: I (or someone) will take written meeting notes
> that are ultimately published for anyone to see (not restricted to those
> invited). They will be transmitted to the dev list.
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>

Le jeu. 14 janv. 2021 à 18:16, Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> a écrit :

>
> 9.0 Release Planing
>
> - Reminder that there are issues with new minors after a major release
> (8.9 after a 9.0) - somebody to research.
>
>
The main challenge with this is backwards compatibility testing. If you
release 8.9 after 9.0, there is nothing in the release process that tests
that Lucene 9 can read 8.9 indices even though that is a guarantee we
provide. It can be tested manually (we have done it a couple times) but
this is quite painful and not as reliable as having it tested on every CI
build prior to the release, so we prefer avoiding releasing new minors
after a new major.

This is mostly a problem for Lucene so once Lucene and Solr have distinct
release cycles, Solr could potentially do this, e.g. release Solr 9.9 after
10.0 is out (as long as Solr 9.9 keeps depending on the same Lucene version
as Solr 9.8).

The question came up in the context of a discussion about whether it
could be sensible for Lucene 9.0 to be released without Solr 9.0 being
released. I think we're struggling a bit to conceptualize how the next
release will work: release 9.0 as we do today and delay the split
until after, coordinate the releases of Lucene 9.0 and Solr 9.0, but
separately, or try to decouple them somehow.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 1:20 PM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Le jeu. 14 janv. 2021 à 18:16, Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> a écrit :
>>
>>
>> 9.0 Release Planing
>>
>> Reminder that there are issues with new minors after a major release (8.9 after a 9.0) - somebody to research.
>
>
> The main challenge with this is backwards compatibility testing. If you release 8.9 after 9.0, there is nothing in the release process that tests that Lucene 9 can read 8.9 indices even though that is a guarantee we provide. It can be tested manually (we have done it a couple times) but this is quite painful and not as reliable as having it tested on every CI build prior to the release, so we prefer avoiding releasing new minors after a new major.
>
> This is mostly a problem for Lucene so once Lucene and Solr have distinct release cycles, Solr could potentially do this, e.g. release Solr 9.9 after 10.0 is out (as long as Solr 9.9 keeps depending on the same Lucene version as Solr 9.8).
>
>

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

Thanks for commenting Adrien; I was hoping to get your input on this!

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 1:20 PM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le jeu. 14 janv. 2021 à 18:16, Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> a écrit :
>
>>
>> 9.0 Release Planing
>>
>> - Reminder that there are issues with new minors after a major
>> release (8.9 after a 9.0) - somebody to research.
>>
>>
> The main challenge with this is backwards compatibility testing. If you
> release 8.9 after 9.0, there is nothing in the release process that tests
> that Lucene 9 can read 8.9 indices even though that is a guarantee we
> provide. It can be tested manually (we have done it a couple times) but
> this is quite painful and not as reliable as having it tested on every CI
> build prior to the release, so we prefer avoiding releasing new minors
> after a new major.
>

I'm not familiar with why the testing needs to be manual instead of
automated. After having a RC of 8.9, couldn't we add the back-compat
indices to branch_9x and check that 9.0 is happy with them (running
applicable automated tests) as a precondition for releasing 8.9?
Regardless, you say we've done it before, and we can do it again. I think
it's likely it'll happen.


> This is mostly a problem for Lucene so once Lucene and Solr have distinct
> release cycles, Solr could potentially do this, e.g. release Solr 9.9 after
> 10.0 is out (as long as Solr 9.9 keeps depending on the same Lucene version
> as Solr 9.8).
>

Right; understood.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:02 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:

> I'm not familiar with why the testing needs to be manual instead of
> automated. After having a RC of 8.9, couldn't we add the back-compat
> indices to branch_9x and check that 9.0 is happy with them (running
> applicable automated tests) as a precondition for releasing 8.9?
> Regardless, you say we've done it before, and we can do it again. I think
> it's likely it'll happen.
>

Right, this is what needs to be done (though ideally on 9.x tags rather
than branch_9x). I called it manual because it requires special action and
is neither checked by Jenkins nor by any of the people who run the smoke
tester on release artifacts. My personal take on this is that the risk of
having a backward compatibility gap or the cost of investing into automated
testing for this outweigh the benefits we can get from releasing new minors
of the previous major. I couldn't attend this meeting, what is the
motivation for keeping releasing 8.x after 9.0 is out?

For the record, I am less worried about patch releases, which have much
smaller scopes and never change file formats. So I'd be fine with doing
8.lastest patch releases after 9.0 is out, similarly to how we released
7.7.3 after 8.0.

--
Adrien

Can we not write in 8.9 notes that upgrades to 9.0 may work but is not officially supported, and that they should wait for 9.1. Then add 8.9 back compact tests to 9.1. Am I missing something?

Jan Høydahl

> 16. jan. 2021 kl. 18:43 skrev Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com>:
>
> ?
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:02 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm not familiar with why the testing needs to be manual instead of automated. After having a RC of 8.9, couldn't we add the back-compat indices to branch_9x and check that 9.0 is happy with them (running applicable automated tests) as a precondition for releasing 8.9? Regardless, you say we've done it before, and we can do it again. I think it's likely it'll happen.
>
>
> Right, this is what needs to be done (though ideally on 9.x tags rather than branch_9x). I called it manual because it requires special action and is neither checked by Jenkins nor by any of the people who run the smoke tester on release artifacts. My personal take on this is that the risk of having a backward compatibility gap or the cost of investing into automated testing for this outweigh the benefits we can get from releasing new minors of the previous major. I couldn't attend this meeting, what is the motivation for keeping releasing 8.x after 9.0 is out?
>
> For the record, I am less worried about patch releases, which have much smaller scopes and never change file formats. So I'd be fine with doing 8.lastest patch releases after 9.0 is out, similarly to how we released 7.7.3 after 8.0.
>
> --
> Adrien

I don't think you are missing something, Jan, but I would rather not
introduce exceptions in order to keep things simple for users.

It's not fully clear to me why this question is important in the context of
9.0, is it because we are considering having a long delay between Lucene
9.0 and Solr 9.0 and we would like to avoid keeping Solr without a release
for too long?

On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 7:04 PM Jan Høydahl <jan.asf@cominvent.com> wrote:

> Can we not write in 8.9 notes that upgrades to 9.0 may work but is not
> officially supported, and that they should wait for 9.1. Then add 8.9 back
> compact tests to 9.1. Am I missing something?
>
> Jan Høydahl
>
> 16. jan. 2021 kl. 18:43 skrev Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com>:
>
> ?
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:02 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm not familiar with why the testing needs to be manual instead of
>> automated. After having a RC of 8.9, couldn't we add the back-compat
>> indices to branch_9x and check that 9.0 is happy with them (running
>> applicable automated tests) as a precondition for releasing 8.9?
>> Regardless, you say we've done it before, and we can do it again. I think
>> it's likely it'll happen.
>>
>
> Right, this is what needs to be done (though ideally on 9.x tags rather
> than branch_9x). I called it manual because it requires special action and
> is neither checked by Jenkins nor by any of the people who run the smoke
> tester on release artifacts. My personal take on this is that the risk of
> having a backward compatibility gap or the cost of investing into automated
> testing for this outweigh the benefits we can get from releasing new minors
> of the previous major. I couldn't attend this meeting, what is the
> motivation for keeping releasing 8.x after 9.0 is out?
>
> For the record, I am less worried about patch releases, which have much
> smaller scopes and never change file formats. So I'd be fine with doing
> 8.lastest patch releases after 9.0 is out, similarly to how we released
> 7.7.3 after 8.0.
>
> --
> Adrien
>
>

--
Adrien

On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 4:50 PM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's not fully clear to me why this question is important in the context
> of 9.0, is it because we are considering having a long delay between Lucene
> 9.0 and Solr 9.0 and we would like to avoid keeping Solr without a release
> for too long?
>

Yes.

Alternatively, I suppose Solr could try and figure out how to release a
Solr 8.9 using Lucene 8.8 or if necessary some 8.9-SNAPSHOT. It would be
a non-standard release of course, ideally performed by someone who is well
familiar with doing Solr releases in order to ensure there is no concurrent
Lucene release.

~ David

>

Out of curiosity, why do we expect a long delay between Lucene 9 and Solr
9, is it because we have many Solr JIRAs that need to go in Solr 9?

On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:54 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 4:50 PM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's not fully clear to me why this question is important in the context
>> of 9.0, is it because we are considering having a long delay between Lucene
>> 9.0 and Solr 9.0 and we would like to avoid keeping Solr without a release
>> for too long?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> Alternatively, I suppose Solr could try and figure out how to release a
> Solr 8.9 using Lucene 8.8 or if necessary some 8.9-SNAPSHOT. It would be
> a non-standard release of course, ideally performed by someone who is well
> familiar with doing Solr releases in order to ensure there is no concurrent
> Lucene release.
>
> ~ David
>
>>

--
Adrien

There was some concern about the tasks needed for the release that are
*not* code-related: figure out how to maintain code repository, make
any needed changes to build system and release process; create a
different web site, and I'm sure other things I'm forgetting.
Personally, I hope these don't turn out to be too great in scope, but
they are somewhat unknown in scope right now. There may also be
code-related issues that I'm not aware of.

On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 4:51 PM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity, why do we expect a long delay between Lucene 9 and Solr 9, is it because we have many Solr JIRAs that need to go in Solr 9?
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:54 PM David Smiley <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 4:50 PM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not fully clear to me why this question is important in the context of 9.0, is it because we are considering having a long delay between Lucene 9.0 and Solr 9.0 and we would like to avoid keeping Solr without a release for too long?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Alternatively, I suppose Solr could try and figure out how to release a Solr 8.9 using Lucene 8.8 or if necessary some 8.9-SNAPSHOT. It would be a non-standard release of course, ideally performed by someone who is well familiar with doing Solr releases in order to ensure there is no concurrent Lucene release.
>>
>> ~ David
>
>
>
> --
> Adrien

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