Mailing List Archive

What should we do of branch_8x?
Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a
8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
I think we should keep the door open for a 8.12 release of Solr (based on
8.11 Lucene). This might mean some split in the codebase, and this can
either happen in the lucene-solr repo or the solr repo (I'm okay with
either).

On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 7:59 PM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:

> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a
> 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
A Solr 8.12 with Lucene 8.11? Not sure of the details on that but
sounds like a giant mess waiting to happen (at the very least, would
require a bunch of complicated changes to the release process). We
need to stop adding features to 8x and focus on 9. I can foresee an
8.11.2 with bug fixes only (8.11.1 is already planned to drop
soon'ish). Why would Solr need an 8.12? I suspect it's related to
upgrading plugins, but that's been an open issue for a long while and
seems to keep getting pushed out. We can't just keep planning new
feature releases because of this plugin upgrade problem. If we really
need an 8.12, then we need to see a concrete design on how the upgrade
process will work in an 8.12. Perhaps there's a better approach that
only relies on code changes to the 9x line? Tough to say, we have no
designs or descriptions of the upgrade problem at this point.

As of today, I'd be strongly against a Solr 8.12 release.

Tim

On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 8:32 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
<ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think we should keep the door open for a 8.12 release of Solr (based on 8.11 Lucene). This might mean some split in the codebase, and this can either happen in the lucene-solr repo or the solr repo (I'm okay with either).
>
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 7:59 PM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
Since there is no concrete design available for that as of today, that's
why I mentioned about "keeping the door open" for 8.12. I'm not proposing a
8.12 today, nor am I saying 8.12 is needed. But, in case we need one, we
should have the ability to release it. Anyway, this discussion should
rather happen on the Solr list.

On Sat, 20 Nov, 2021, 10:10 pm Timothy Potter, <thelabdude@gmail.com> wrote:

> A Solr 8.12 with Lucene 8.11? Not sure of the details on that but
> sounds like a giant mess waiting to happen (at the very least, would
> require a bunch of complicated changes to the release process). We
> need to stop adding features to 8x and focus on 9. I can foresee an
> 8.11.2 with bug fixes only (8.11.1 is already planned to drop
> soon'ish). Why would Solr need an 8.12? I suspect it's related to
> upgrading plugins, but that's been an open issue for a long while and
> seems to keep getting pushed out. We can't just keep planning new
> feature releases because of this plugin upgrade problem. If we really
> need an 8.12, then we need to see a concrete design on how the upgrade
> process will work in an 8.12. Perhaps there's a better approach that
> only relies on code changes to the 9x line? Tough to say, we have no
> designs or descriptions of the upgrade problem at this point.
>
> As of today, I'd be strongly against a Solr 8.12 release.
>
> Tim
>
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 8:32 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think we should keep the door open for a 8.12 release of Solr (based
> on 8.11 Lucene). This might mean some split in the codebase, and this can
> either happen in the lucene-solr repo or the solr repo (I'm okay with
> either).
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 7:59 PM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to
> do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
+1 to “leave the door open” despite it seeming an awkward endeavor.



On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 1:15 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:

> Since there is no concrete design available for that as of today, that's
> why I mentioned about "keeping the door open" for 8.12. I'm not proposing a
> 8.12 today, nor am I saying 8.12 is needed. But, in case we need one, we
> should have the ability to release it. Anyway, this discussion should
> rather happen on the Solr list.
>
> On Sat, 20 Nov, 2021, 10:10 pm Timothy Potter, <thelabdude@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A Solr 8.12 with Lucene 8.11? Not sure of the details on that but
>> sounds like a giant mess waiting to happen (at the very least, would
>> require a bunch of complicated changes to the release process). We
>> need to stop adding features to 8x and focus on 9. I can foresee an
>> 8.11.2 with bug fixes only (8.11.1 is already planned to drop
>> soon'ish). Why would Solr need an 8.12? I suspect it's related to
>> upgrading plugins, but that's been an open issue for a long while and
>> seems to keep getting pushed out. We can't just keep planning new
>> feature releases because of this plugin upgrade problem. If we really
>> need an 8.12, then we need to see a concrete design on how the upgrade
>> process will work in an 8.12. Perhaps there's a better approach that
>> only relies on code changes to the 9x line? Tough to say, we have no
>> designs or descriptions of the upgrade problem at this point.
>>
>> As of today, I'd be strongly against a Solr 8.12 release.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 8:32 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I think we should keep the door open for a 8.12 release of Solr (based
>> on 8.11 Lucene). This might mean some split in the codebase, and this can
>> either happen in the lucene-solr repo or the solr repo (I'm okay with
>> either).
>> >
>> > On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 7:59 PM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to
>> do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>> --
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
+1, let's leave the option of the possibility

On Sun, 21 Nov 2021, 00:18 David Smiley, <dsmiley@apache.org> wrote:

> +1 to “leave the door open” despite it seeming an awkward endeavor.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 1:15 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Since there is no concrete design available for that as of today, that's
>> why I mentioned about "keeping the door open" for 8.12. I'm not proposing a
>> 8.12 today, nor am I saying 8.12 is needed. But, in case we need one, we
>> should have the ability to release it. Anyway, this discussion should
>> rather happen on the Solr list.
>>
>> On Sat, 20 Nov, 2021, 10:10 pm Timothy Potter, <thelabdude@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A Solr 8.12 with Lucene 8.11? Not sure of the details on that but
>>> sounds like a giant mess waiting to happen (at the very least, would
>>> require a bunch of complicated changes to the release process). We
>>> need to stop adding features to 8x and focus on 9. I can foresee an
>>> 8.11.2 with bug fixes only (8.11.1 is already planned to drop
>>> soon'ish). Why would Solr need an 8.12? I suspect it's related to
>>> upgrading plugins, but that's been an open issue for a long while and
>>> seems to keep getting pushed out. We can't just keep planning new
>>> feature releases because of this plugin upgrade problem. If we really
>>> need an 8.12, then we need to see a concrete design on how the upgrade
>>> process will work in an 8.12. Perhaps there's a better approach that
>>> only relies on code changes to the 9x line? Tough to say, we have no
>>> designs or descriptions of the upgrade problem at this point.
>>>
>>> As of today, I'd be strongly against a Solr 8.12 release.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 8:32 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I think we should keep the door open for a 8.12 release of Solr (based
>>> on 8.11 Lucene). This might mean some split in the codebase, and this can
>>> either happen in the lucene-solr repo or the solr repo (I'm okay with
>>> either).
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 7:59 PM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to
>>> do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
I think we should remove this branch.

personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can
automate such an email response with a gmail rule.

we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.

On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto

"To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must provide
with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the change is bad
(opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, *etc.* ). A
veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."

On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think we should remove this branch.
>
> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can
> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
>
> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.
>
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do
> a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
I gave my technical justification: our backwards compatibility testing
doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat with
versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
<ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
>
> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
>
> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think we should remove this branch.
>>
>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can
>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
>>
>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
I agree with Robert here, this makes little sense as there is no tooling in
this repository to release solr without lucene. If it ever happens it will
probably be done outside.

The idea of "leaving a door open" has no justification because it is more
"drawing a door in a wall" and might give false expectations.

+1 to remove the branch.

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 12:52 PM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:

> I gave my technical justification: our backwards compatibility testing
> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat with
> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
> >
> > "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must provide
> with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the change is bad
> (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto
> without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
> >
> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think we should remove this branch.
> >>
> >> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can
> >> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
> >>
> >> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
> >> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to
> do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
Hi,

I fully agree with Robert here.

I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of this. Once we released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index file format will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0 will refuse to read.

We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have index format changes and minor version numbers are not persisted.

So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still want one, hold 9.0 release and add precautions for this.

Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr and just add Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so Solr 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711.

As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to it in GitHub. Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene main I to branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes!

Uwe

Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com>:
>I gave my technical justification: our backwards compatibility testing
>doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat with
>versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
>
>On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
><ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
>>
>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
>>
>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we should remove this branch.
>>>
>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can
>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
>>>
>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>

--
Uwe Schindler
Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
https://www.thetaphi.de
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
Solr doesn't have backward compatability tests, only Lucene has.

That's why I proposed leaving the door open for a Solr 8.12 release based
on already released 8.11 Lucene and not releasing any further 8.x minor
version release of Lucene.

As I said, if that's problematic to do on branch_8x of lucene-solr, then we
can do so in the solr repo. If some urgent action to nuke the branch is to
be taken, please give some time to explore alternatives that affect Solr's
developement.

Holding up Lucene 9.0 release for removal of branch_8x is lunacy, not the
continued existence of this branch in the shared repo, since a future
course of action should be deliberated upon before nuking the branch.

On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 5:34 pm Uwe Schindler, <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I fully agree with Robert here.
>
> I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of this. Once we
> released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index file format
> will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0 will refuse
> to read.
>
> We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have index format
> changes and minor version numbers are not persisted.
>
> So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still want one, hold 9.0
> release and add precautions for this.
>
> Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr and just add
> Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so Solr
> 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711.
>
> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to it in GitHub.
> Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene main I to
> branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes!
>
> Uwe
>
> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com>:
>>
>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards compatibility testing
>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat with
>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
>>>
>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
>>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think we should remove this branch.
>>>>
>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can
>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
>>>>
>>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
>>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> 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
>>
>> --
> Uwe Schindler
> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
> https://www.thetaphi.de
>
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
Nope, it isn't crazy. I am trying to ensure the backwards
compatibility that we have is on solid, sustainable footing before we
release a new version promising double the back compat.

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:37 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
<ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Solr doesn't have backward compatability tests, only Lucene has.
>
> That's why I proposed leaving the door open for a Solr 8.12 release based on already released 8.11 Lucene and not releasing any further 8.x minor version release of Lucene.
>
> As I said, if that's problematic to do on branch_8x of lucene-solr, then we can do so in the solr repo. If some urgent action to nuke the branch is to be taken, please give some time to explore alternatives that affect Solr's developement.
>
> Holding up Lucene 9.0 release for removal of branch_8x is lunacy, not the continued existence of this branch in the shared repo, since a future course of action should be deliberated upon before nuking the branch.
>
> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 5:34 pm Uwe Schindler, <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I fully agree with Robert here.
>>
>> I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of this. Once we released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index file format will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0 will refuse to read.
>>
>> We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have index format changes and minor version numbers are not persisted.
>>
>> So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still want one, hold 9.0 release and add precautions for this.
>>
>> Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr and just add Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so Solr 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711.
>>
>> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to it in GitHub. Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene main I to branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes!
>>
>> Uwe
>>
>> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards compatibility testing
>>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat with
>>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
>>>>
>>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should remove this branch.
>>>>>
>>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can
>>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
>>>>>
>>>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
>>>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>> --
>> Uwe Schindler
>> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
>> https://www.thetaphi.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
Sounds good, Rob. Should I copy over the branch_8x to the solr repo until
we have further clarity on the course of action to be taken with Solr
releases?

On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:10 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nope, it isn't crazy. I am trying to ensure the backwards
> compatibility that we have is on solid, sustainable footing before we
> release a new version promising double the back compat.
>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:37 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Solr doesn't have backward compatability tests, only Lucene has.
> >
> > That's why I proposed leaving the door open for a Solr 8.12 release
> based on already released 8.11 Lucene and not releasing any further 8.x
> minor version release of Lucene.
> >
> > As I said, if that's problematic to do on branch_8x of lucene-solr, then
> we can do so in the solr repo. If some urgent action to nuke the branch is
> to be taken, please give some time to explore alternatives that affect
> Solr's developement.
> >
> > Holding up Lucene 9.0 release for removal of branch_8x is lunacy, not
> the continued existence of this branch in the shared repo, since a future
> course of action should be deliberated upon before nuking the branch.
> >
> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 5:34 pm Uwe Schindler, <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I fully agree with Robert here.
> >>
> >> I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of this. Once we
> released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index file format
> will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0 will refuse
> to read.
> >>
> >> We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have index format
> changes and minor version numbers are not persisted.
> >>
> >> So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still want one, hold
> 9.0 release and add precautions for this.
> >>
> >> Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr and just add
> Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so Solr
> 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711.
> >>
> >> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to it in
> GitHub. Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene main I to
> branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes!
> >>
> >> Uwe
> >>
> >> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com
> >:
> >>>
> >>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards compatibility testing
> >>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat with
> >>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> >>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
> >>>>
> >>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must
> provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the change is
> bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A
> veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think we should remove this branch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can
> >>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
> >>>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going
> to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>> 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
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Uwe Schindler
> >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
> >> https://www.thetaphi.de
>
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:42 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
<ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sounds good, Rob. Should I copy over the branch_8x to the solr repo until we have further clarity on the course of action to be taken with Solr releases?
>
> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:10 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Nope, it isn't crazy. I am trying to ensure the backwards
>> compatibility that we have is on solid, sustainable footing before we
>> release a new version promising double the back compat.
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:37 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Solr doesn't have backward compatability tests, only Lucene has.
>> >
>> > That's why I proposed leaving the door open for a Solr 8.12 release based on already released 8.11 Lucene and not releasing any further 8.x minor version release of Lucene.
>> >
>> > As I said, if that's problematic to do on branch_8x of lucene-solr, then we can do so in the solr repo. If some urgent action to nuke the branch is to be taken, please give some time to explore alternatives that affect Solr's developement.
>> >
>> > Holding up Lucene 9.0 release for removal of branch_8x is lunacy, not the continued existence of this branch in the shared repo, since a future course of action should be deliberated upon before nuking the branch.
>> >
>> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 5:34 pm Uwe Schindler, <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I fully agree with Robert here.
>> >>
>> >> I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of this. Once we released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index file format will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0 will refuse to read.
>> >>
>> >> We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have index format changes and minor version numbers are not persisted.
>> >>
>> >> So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still want one, hold 9.0 release and add precautions for this.
>> >>
>> >> Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr and just add Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so Solr 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711.
>> >>
>> >> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to it in GitHub. Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene main I to branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes!
>> >>
>> >> Uwe
>> >>
>> >> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com>:
>> >>>
>> >>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards compatibility testing
>> >>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat with
>> >>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> >>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I think we should remove this branch.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can
>> >>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
>> >>>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ________________________________
>> >>>>> 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
>> >>>
>> >> --
>> >> Uwe Schindler
>> >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
>> >> https://www.thetaphi.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
> I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
I never expressed any intention of doing so. Besides, is it even possible
(ASF policies wise)?

This is a weekend, and I feel bad holding up the 9.0 release (since this is
a blocker). Solr PMC can decide later on Solr's releases, and hence I'm
going to copy this branch_8x over to Solr repo's "lucene-solr/branch_8x"
branch.


On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:14 PM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:42 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds good, Rob. Should I copy over the branch_8x to the solr repo
> until we have further clarity on the course of action to be taken with Solr
> releases?
> >
> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:10 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Nope, it isn't crazy. I am trying to ensure the backwards
> >> compatibility that we have is on solid, sustainable footing before we
> >> release a new version promising double the back compat.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:37 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Solr doesn't have backward compatability tests, only Lucene has.
> >> >
> >> > That's why I proposed leaving the door open for a Solr 8.12 release
> based on already released 8.11 Lucene and not releasing any further 8.x
> minor version release of Lucene.
> >> >
> >> > As I said, if that's problematic to do on branch_8x of lucene-solr,
> then we can do so in the solr repo. If some urgent action to nuke the
> branch is to be taken, please give some time to explore alternatives that
> affect Solr's developement.
> >> >
> >> > Holding up Lucene 9.0 release for removal of branch_8x is lunacy, not
> the continued existence of this branch in the shared repo, since a future
> course of action should be deliberated upon before nuking the branch.
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 5:34 pm Uwe Schindler, <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> I fully agree with Robert here.
> >> >>
> >> >> I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of this. Once
> we released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index file
> format will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0 will
> refuse to read.
> >> >>
> >> >> We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have index format
> changes and minor version numbers are not persisted.
> >> >>
> >> >> So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still want one,
> hold 9.0 release and add precautions for this.
> >> >>
> >> >> Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr and just
> add Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so Solr
> 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711.
> >> >>
> >> >> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to it in
> GitHub. Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene main I to
> branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes!
> >> >>
> >> >> Uwe
> >> >>
> >> >> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir <
> rcmuir@gmail.com>:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards compatibility
> testing
> >> >>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat with
> >> >>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> >> >>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must
> provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the change is
> bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A
> veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I think we should remove this branch.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can
> >> >>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
> >> >>>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not
> going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> ________________________________
> >> >>>>> 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
> >> >>>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Uwe Schindler
> >> >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
> >> >> https://www.thetaphi.de
>
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
Sorry, I just don't understand the implications of what you are suggesting.

The code in question is lucene+solr combined, and the build system and
packaging and everything only knows how to do that. So are you forking
all the lucene code into the solr repo too?

I don't really understand your need to have a branch_8x. we can nuke
it, and you can do any of this from a branch_8_11 some other day, no?

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:57 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
<ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
> I never expressed any intention of doing so. Besides, is it even possible (ASF policies wise)?
>
> This is a weekend, and I feel bad holding up the 9.0 release (since this is a blocker). Solr PMC can decide later on Solr's releases, and hence I'm going to copy this branch_8x over to Solr repo's "lucene-solr/branch_8x" branch.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:14 PM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:42 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Sounds good, Rob. Should I copy over the branch_8x to the solr repo until we have further clarity on the course of action to be taken with Solr releases?
>> >
>> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:10 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Nope, it isn't crazy. I am trying to ensure the backwards
>> >> compatibility that we have is on solid, sustainable footing before we
>> >> release a new version promising double the back compat.
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:37 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Solr doesn't have backward compatability tests, only Lucene has.
>> >> >
>> >> > That's why I proposed leaving the door open for a Solr 8.12 release based on already released 8.11 Lucene and not releasing any further 8.x minor version release of Lucene.
>> >> >
>> >> > As I said, if that's problematic to do on branch_8x of lucene-solr, then we can do so in the solr repo. If some urgent action to nuke the branch is to be taken, please give some time to explore alternatives that affect Solr's developement.
>> >> >
>> >> > Holding up Lucene 9.0 release for removal of branch_8x is lunacy, not the continued existence of this branch in the shared repo, since a future course of action should be deliberated upon before nuking the branch.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 5:34 pm Uwe Schindler, <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I fully agree with Robert here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of this. Once we released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index file format will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0 will refuse to read.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have index format changes and minor version numbers are not persisted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still want one, hold 9.0 release and add precautions for this.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr and just add Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so Solr 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to it in GitHub. Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene main I to branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Uwe
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com>:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards compatibility testing
>> >> >>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat with
>> >> >>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> >> >>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I think we should remove this branch.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can
>> >> >>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
>> >> >>>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> ________________________________
>> >> >>>>> 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
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Uwe Schindler
>> >> >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
>> >> >> https://www.thetaphi.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:31 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry, I just don't understand the implications of what you are suggesting.
>
> The code in question is lucene+solr combined, and the build system and
> packaging and everything only knows how to do that. So are you forking
> all the lucene code into the solr repo too?
>

Need to split it up and remove the Lucene code from there in order to be
able to release Solr independently. We can do so later (I'm currently on
travel), if/when needed.

>
> I don't really understand your need to have a branch_8x. we can nuke
> it, and you can do any of this from a branch_8_11 some other day, no?
>

I guess we can, just don't know the divergence. Just to be on the safer
side, don't want to lose access to the branch_8x over a weekend before I or
persons more knowledgeable (on the differences between the branches) than I
get a chance to review the situation. Hence, I just copied the branch there
for the moment.

>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:57 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
> > I never expressed any intention of doing so. Besides, is it even
> possible (ASF policies wise)?
> >
> > This is a weekend, and I feel bad holding up the 9.0 release (since this
> is a blocker). Solr PMC can decide later on Solr's releases, and hence I'm
> going to copy this branch_8x over to Solr repo's "lucene-solr/branch_8x"
> branch.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:14 PM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:42 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Sounds good, Rob. Should I copy over the branch_8x to the solr repo
> until we have further clarity on the course of action to be taken with Solr
> releases?
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:10 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope, it isn't crazy. I am trying to ensure the backwards
> >> >> compatibility that we have is on solid, sustainable footing before we
> >> >> release a new version promising double the back compat.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:37 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> >> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Solr doesn't have backward compatability tests, only Lucene has.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's why I proposed leaving the door open for a Solr 8.12
> release based on already released 8.11 Lucene and not releasing any further
> 8.x minor version release of Lucene.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As I said, if that's problematic to do on branch_8x of
> lucene-solr, then we can do so in the solr repo. If some urgent action to
> nuke the branch is to be taken, please give some time to explore
> alternatives that affect Solr's developement.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Holding up Lucene 9.0 release for removal of branch_8x is lunacy,
> not the continued existence of this branch in the shared repo, since a
> future course of action should be deliberated upon before nuking the branch.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 5:34 pm Uwe Schindler, <uwe@thetaphi.de>
> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I fully agree with Robert here.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of this.
> Once we released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index file
> format will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0 will
> refuse to read.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have index
> format changes and minor version numbers are not persisted.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still want one,
> hold 9.0 release and add precautions for this.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr and just
> add Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so Solr
> 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to it
> in GitHub. Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene main I to
> branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Uwe
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir <
> rcmuir@gmail.com>:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards compatibility
> testing
> >> >> >>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat with
> >> >> >>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> >> >> >>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter
> must provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the
> change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance,
> etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> I think we should remove this branch.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i
> can
> >> >> >>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
> >> >> >>>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on
> people.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <
> jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not
> going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> ________________________________
> >> >> >>>>> 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
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Uwe Schindler
> >> >> >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
> >> >> >> https://www.thetaphi.de
>
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
I dunno, this seems really crazy to me. Splitting out solr into its
own repository and allowing it to be released independently from
lucene has already been done, lots of work :) Why not just move
forwards?

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:16 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
<ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:31 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I just don't understand the implications of what you are suggesting.
>>
>> The code in question is lucene+solr combined, and the build system and
>> packaging and everything only knows how to do that. So are you forking
>> all the lucene code into the solr repo too?
>
>
> Need to split it up and remove the Lucene code from there in order to be able to release Solr independently. We can do so later (I'm currently on travel), if/when needed.
>>
>>
>> I don't really understand your need to have a branch_8x. we can nuke
>> it, and you can do any of this from a branch_8_11 some other day, no?
>
>
> I guess we can, just don't know the divergence. Just to be on the safer side, don't want to lose access to the branch_8x over a weekend before I or persons more knowledgeable (on the differences between the branches) than I get a chance to review the situation. Hence, I just copied the branch there for the moment.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:57 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
>> > I never expressed any intention of doing so. Besides, is it even possible (ASF policies wise)?
>> >
>> > This is a weekend, and I feel bad holding up the 9.0 release (since this is a blocker). Solr PMC can decide later on Solr's releases, and hence I'm going to copy this branch_8x over to Solr repo's "lucene-solr/branch_8x" branch.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:14 PM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:42 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Sounds good, Rob. Should I copy over the branch_8x to the solr repo until we have further clarity on the course of action to be taken with Solr releases?
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:10 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nope, it isn't crazy. I am trying to ensure the backwards
>> >> >> compatibility that we have is on solid, sustainable footing before we
>> >> >> release a new version promising double the back compat.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:37 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> >> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Solr doesn't have backward compatability tests, only Lucene has.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That's why I proposed leaving the door open for a Solr 8.12 release based on already released 8.11 Lucene and not releasing any further 8.x minor version release of Lucene.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > As I said, if that's problematic to do on branch_8x of lucene-solr, then we can do so in the solr repo. If some urgent action to nuke the branch is to be taken, please give some time to explore alternatives that affect Solr's developement.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Holding up Lucene 9.0 release for removal of branch_8x is lunacy, not the continued existence of this branch in the shared repo, since a future course of action should be deliberated upon before nuking the branch.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 5:34 pm Uwe Schindler, <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I fully agree with Robert here.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of this. Once we released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index file format will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0 will refuse to read.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have index format changes and minor version numbers are not persisted.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still want one, hold 9.0 release and add precautions for this.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr and just add Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so Solr 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to it in GitHub. Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene main I to branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Uwe
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com>:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards compatibility testing
>> >> >> >>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat with
>> >> >> >>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> >> >> >>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> I think we should remove this branch.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can
>> >> >> >>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
>> >> >> >>>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> ________________________________
>> >> >> >>>>> 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
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> Uwe Schindler
>> >> >> >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
>> >> >> >> https://www.thetaphi.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
Release of Solr 8.12 It should require the current lucene-solr 8.x branch
to remove the lucene bits and declare a dependency on lucene 8.11 lucene,
that bit shouldn't be too hard if done soon... and the release process for
8.x would not publish a lucene artifact which is likely the harder bit. I
think the option should be open assuming someone is willing to do that
work.What should not be an option is any further lucene releases on 8.x
and I'd be very leery of any attempt to consume lucene 9.0 on Solr 8.x

The Lucene guarantees are irrelevant unless someone contemplates releasing
an 8.12 lucene, and I really think that would require a positive vote from
the Lucene PMC (which sounds very unlikely since I see fingers twitching
over the -1 holsters there :) )

So while I don't favor deleting the entire solr 8.x branch I think it's now
fine to remove lucene from it.

To make things pretty, one could push the 8.x branch to the solr repo AFTER
lucene is removed, but that sounds like busy work unless there is some
formal or financial need to close the old repo. They are now fully separate
projects and what solr does with the non-lucene bits is not a concern to
lucene pmc (though almost all of us are on both committees of course, but
hat wearing etc..)

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:43 AM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:

> I dunno, this seems really crazy to me. Splitting out solr into its
> own repository and allowing it to be released independently from
> lucene has already been done, lots of work :) Why not just move
> forwards?
>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:16 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:31 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, I just don't understand the implications of what you are
> suggesting.
> >>
> >> The code in question is lucene+solr combined, and the build system and
> >> packaging and everything only knows how to do that. So are you forking
> >> all the lucene code into the solr repo too?
> >
> >
> > Need to split it up and remove the Lucene code from there in order to be
> able to release Solr independently. We can do so later (I'm currently on
> travel), if/when needed.
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't really understand your need to have a branch_8x. we can nuke
> >> it, and you can do any of this from a branch_8_11 some other day, no?
> >
> >
> > I guess we can, just don't know the divergence. Just to be on the safer
> side, don't want to lose access to the branch_8x over a weekend before I or
> persons more knowledgeable (on the differences between the branches) than I
> get a chance to review the situation. Hence, I just copied the branch there
> for the moment.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:57 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
> >> > I never expressed any intention of doing so. Besides, is it even
> possible (ASF policies wise)?
> >> >
> >> > This is a weekend, and I feel bad holding up the 9.0 release (since
> this is a blocker). Solr PMC can decide later on Solr's releases, and hence
> I'm going to copy this branch_8x over to Solr repo's
> "lucene-solr/branch_8x" branch.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:14 PM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:42 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> >> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sounds good, Rob. Should I copy over the branch_8x to the solr
> repo until we have further clarity on the course of action to be taken with
> Solr releases?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:10 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nope, it isn't crazy. I am trying to ensure the backwards
> >> >> >> compatibility that we have is on solid, sustainable footing
> before we
> >> >> >> release a new version promising double the back compat.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:37 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> >> >> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Solr doesn't have backward compatability tests, only Lucene has.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > That's why I proposed leaving the door open for a Solr 8.12
> release based on already released 8.11 Lucene and not releasing any further
> 8.x minor version release of Lucene.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > As I said, if that's problematic to do on branch_8x of
> lucene-solr, then we can do so in the solr repo. If some urgent action to
> nuke the branch is to be taken, please give some time to explore
> alternatives that affect Solr's developement.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Holding up Lucene 9.0 release for removal of branch_8x is
> lunacy, not the continued existence of this branch in the shared repo,
> since a future course of action should be deliberated upon before nuking
> the branch.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 5:34 pm Uwe Schindler, <uwe@thetaphi.de>
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I fully agree with Robert here.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of
> this. Once we released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index
> file format will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0
> will refuse to read.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have index
> format changes and minor version numbers are not persisted.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still want
> one, hold 9.0 release and add precautions for this.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr and
> just add Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so
> Solr 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to
> it in GitHub. Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene main I
> to branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes!
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Uwe
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir <
> rcmuir@gmail.com>:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards
> compatibility testing
> >> >> >> >>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat
> with
> >> >> >> >>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> >> >> >> >>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter
> must provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the
> change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance,
> etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <
> rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> I think we should remove this branch.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if
> i can
> >> >> >> >>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
> >> >> >> >>>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on
> people.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <
> jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are
> not going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> ________________________________
> >> >> >> >>>>> 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
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> Uwe Schindler
> >> >> >> >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
> >> >> >> >> https://www.thetaphi.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

--
http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
http://www.the111shift.com (play)
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
> Release of Solr 8.12 It should require the current lucene-solr 8.x branch to remove the lucene bits and declare a dependency on lucene 8.11 lucene,

I don't think it'd be particularly hard to move the 8.x line of Solr
to gradle, just like the mainline development is done. Then you could
have any dependency you can think of. Most of the hard work has been
done and porting the build to 8x should be a couple of hours.

Dawid

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 5:05 PM Gus Heck <gus.heck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Release of Solr 8.12 It should require the current lucene-solr 8.x branch to remove the lucene bits and declare a dependency on lucene 8.11 lucene, that bit shouldn't be too hard if done soon... and the release process for 8.x would not publish a lucene artifact which is likely the harder bit. I think the option should be open assuming someone is willing to do that work.What should not be an option is any further lucene releases on 8.x and I'd be very leery of any attempt to consume lucene 9.0 on Solr 8.x
>
> The Lucene guarantees are irrelevant unless someone contemplates releasing an 8.12 lucene, and I really think that would require a positive vote from the Lucene PMC (which sounds very unlikely since I see fingers twitching over the -1 holsters there :) )
>
> So while I don't favor deleting the entire solr 8.x branch I think it's now fine to remove lucene from it.
>
> To make things pretty, one could push the 8.x branch to the solr repo AFTER lucene is removed, but that sounds like busy work unless there is some formal or financial need to close the old repo. They are now fully separate projects and what solr does with the non-lucene bits is not a concern to lucene pmc (though almost all of us are on both committees of course, but hat wearing etc..)
>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:43 AM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I dunno, this seems really crazy to me. Splitting out solr into its
>> own repository and allowing it to be released independently from
>> lucene has already been done, lots of work :) Why not just move
>> forwards?
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:16 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:31 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I just don't understand the implications of what you are suggesting.
>> >>
>> >> The code in question is lucene+solr combined, and the build system and
>> >> packaging and everything only knows how to do that. So are you forking
>> >> all the lucene code into the solr repo too?
>> >
>> >
>> > Need to split it up and remove the Lucene code from there in order to be able to release Solr independently. We can do so later (I'm currently on travel), if/when needed.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I don't really understand your need to have a branch_8x. we can nuke
>> >> it, and you can do any of this from a branch_8_11 some other day, no?
>> >
>> >
>> > I guess we can, just don't know the divergence. Just to be on the safer side, don't want to lose access to the branch_8x over a weekend before I or persons more knowledgeable (on the differences between the branches) than I get a chance to review the situation. Hence, I just copied the branch there for the moment.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:57 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
>> >> > I never expressed any intention of doing so. Besides, is it even possible (ASF policies wise)?
>> >> >
>> >> > This is a weekend, and I feel bad holding up the 9.0 release (since this is a blocker). Solr PMC can decide later on Solr's releases, and hence I'm going to copy this branch_8x over to Solr repo's "lucene-solr/branch_8x" branch.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:14 PM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:42 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> >> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Sounds good, Rob. Should I copy over the branch_8x to the solr repo until we have further clarity on the course of action to be taken with Solr releases?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:10 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Nope, it isn't crazy. I am trying to ensure the backwards
>> >> >> >> compatibility that we have is on solid, sustainable footing before we
>> >> >> >> release a new version promising double the back compat.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:37 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> >> >> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Solr doesn't have backward compatability tests, only Lucene has.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > That's why I proposed leaving the door open for a Solr 8.12 release based on already released 8.11 Lucene and not releasing any further 8.x minor version release of Lucene.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > As I said, if that's problematic to do on branch_8x of lucene-solr, then we can do so in the solr repo. If some urgent action to nuke the branch is to be taken, please give some time to explore alternatives that affect Solr's developement.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Holding up Lucene 9.0 release for removal of branch_8x is lunacy, not the continued existence of this branch in the shared repo, since a future course of action should be deliberated upon before nuking the branch.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 5:34 pm Uwe Schindler, <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I fully agree with Robert here.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of this. Once we released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index file format will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0 will refuse to read.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have index format changes and minor version numbers are not persisted.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still want one, hold 9.0 release and add precautions for this.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr and just add Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so Solr 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to it in GitHub. Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene main I to branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes!
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Uwe
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com>:
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards compatibility testing
>> >> >> >> >>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat with
>> >> >> >> >>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> >> >> >> >>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>> I think we should remove this branch.
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can
>> >> >> >> >>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
>> >> >> >> >>>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>> ________________________________
>> >> >> >> >>>>> 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
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> Uwe Schindler
>> >> >> >> >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
>> >> >> >> >> https://www.thetaphi.de
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>
>
> --
> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
> http://www.the111shift.com (play)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
This is of course all possible, but: WHY the heck do this?



Lucene 9.0 will come out likely very soon. After that just update the gradle file of Solr main and remove the temporary repository (better comment it out). After that adapt some changes and release Solr 9.0.



From that point on both projects have a clear split point and everybody can make sure that the backwards compatibility is handled according to project’s needs.



If the Solr 9.0 release is a intermediary point (not all deprecations removed), release Solr 10.0 four months later, who cares? Solr 9.0 will be the release with many new features and Java 11 as minimum requirement.



I would really, really not start and fuck up the release process for 8.x! Why not release 8.11.1 soon, if you have any changes in Solr to do? Why do this release needs to be called 8.12? It is just a version number, so why the heck this big issues? I won’t think that Solr will add any major features before Solr 9. So what is your exact problem?



Sorry, but this discussion is complete nonsense. Its just version numbers and some hick-hack between two parties that disagree. Keep calm and don’t try to make it overcomplicated!



I never said that we should kill or delete branch_8x. It can stay there forever. I just suggested to make it read-only and add a note. Unless there’s really a need to do some 8.12 release (in which case, I’d fork 8.11 branch and move Lucene) I see no reason to act and fuck up the repositories of both projects which have now a very clear state.



Uwe



-----

Uwe Schindler

Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen

https://www.thetaphi.de

eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de



From: Gus Heck <gus.heck@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 5:05 PM
To: dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
Subject: Re: What should we do of branch_8x?



Release of Solr 8.12 It should require the current lucene-solr 8.x branch to remove the lucene bits and declare a dependency on lucene 8.11 lucene, that bit shouldn't be too hard if done soon... and the release process for 8.x would not publish a lucene artifact which is likely the harder bit. I think the option should be open assuming someone is willing to do that work.What should not be an option is any further lucene releases on 8.x and I'd be very leery of any attempt to consume lucene 9.0 on Solr 8.x



The Lucene guarantees are irrelevant unless someone contemplates releasing an 8.12 lucene, and I really think that would require a positive vote from the Lucene PMC (which sounds very unlikely since I see fingers twitching over the -1 holsters there :) )



So while I don't favor deleting the entire solr 8.x branch I think it's now fine to remove lucene from it.



To make things pretty, one could push the 8.x branch to the solr repo AFTER lucene is removed, but that sounds like busy work unless there is some formal or financial need to close the old repo. They are now fully separate projects and what solr does with the non-lucene bits is not a concern to lucene pmc (though almost all of us are on both committees of course, but hat wearing etc..)



On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:43 AM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com> > wrote:

I dunno, this seems really crazy to me. Splitting out solr into its
own repository and allowing it to be released independently from
lucene has already been done, lots of work :) Why not just move
forwards?

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:16 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
<ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com <mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:31 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com> > wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I just don't understand the implications of what you are suggesting.
>>
>> The code in question is lucene+solr combined, and the build system and
>> packaging and everything only knows how to do that. So are you forking
>> all the lucene code into the solr repo too?
>
>
> Need to split it up and remove the Lucene code from there in order to be able to release Solr independently. We can do so later (I'm currently on travel), if/when needed.
>>
>>
>> I don't really understand your need to have a branch_8x. we can nuke
>> it, and you can do any of this from a branch_8_11 some other day, no?
>
>
> I guess we can, just don't know the divergence. Just to be on the safer side, don't want to lose access to the branch_8x over a weekend before I or persons more knowledgeable (on the differences between the branches) than I get a chance to review the situation. Hence, I just copied the branch there for the moment.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:57 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com <mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
>> > I never expressed any intention of doing so. Besides, is it even possible (ASF policies wise)?
>> >
>> > This is a weekend, and I feel bad holding up the 9.0 release (since this is a blocker). Solr PMC can decide later on Solr's releases, and hence I'm going to copy this branch_8x over to Solr repo's "lucene-solr/branch_8x" branch.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:14 PM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:42 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com <mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Sounds good, Rob. Should I copy over the branch_8x to the solr repo until we have further clarity on the course of action to be taken with Solr releases?
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:10 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nope, it isn't crazy. I am trying to ensure the backwards
>> >> >> compatibility that we have is on solid, sustainable footing before we
>> >> >> release a new version promising double the back compat.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:37 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> >> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com <mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Solr doesn't have backward compatability tests, only Lucene has.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That's why I proposed leaving the door open for a Solr 8.12 release based on already released 8.11 Lucene and not releasing any further 8.x minor version release of Lucene.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > As I said, if that's problematic to do on branch_8x of lucene-solr, then we can do so in the solr repo. If some urgent action to nuke the branch is to be taken, please give some time to explore alternatives that affect Solr's developement.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Holding up Lucene 9.0 release for removal of branch_8x is lunacy, not the continued existence of this branch in the shared repo, since a future course of action should be deliberated upon before nuking the branch.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 5:34 pm Uwe Schindler, <uwe@thetaphi.de <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I fully agree with Robert here.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of this. Once we released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index file format will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0 will refuse to read.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have index format changes and minor version numbers are not persisted.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still want one, hold 9.0 release and add precautions for this.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr and just add Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so Solr 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to it in GitHub. Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene main I to branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Uwe
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com> >:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards compatibility testing
>> >> >> >>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat with
>> >> >> >>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> >> >> >>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com <mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> I think we should remove this branch.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can
>> >> >> >>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
>> >> >> >>>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com <mailto:jpountz@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> ________________________________
>> >> >> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>
>> >> >> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org <mailto:dev-help@lucene.apache.org>
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>> ________________________________
>> >> >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>
>> >> >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org <mailto:dev-help@lucene.apache.org>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> Uwe Schindler
>> >> >> >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
>> >> >> >> https://www.thetaphi.de

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



--

http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)

http://www.the111shift.com (play)
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
+1 to making branch_8x read-only as Uwe suggested

I think Uwe's other point is also important: if we ever wanted to do a Solr
8.12, it'd probably be a better option to fork the 8.11 branch than to try
to reuse branch_8x. So we don't need to tie the decision about what we want
to do with branch_8x with future plans around an 8.12 release?

On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:48 PM Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:

> This is of course all possible, but: WHY the heck do this?
>
>
>
> Lucene 9.0 will come out likely very soon. After that just update the
> gradle file of Solr main and remove the temporary repository (better
> comment it out). After that adapt some changes and release Solr 9.0.
>
>
>
> From that point on both projects have a clear split point and everybody
> can make sure that the backwards compatibility is handled according to
> project’s needs.
>
>
>
> If the Solr 9.0 release is a intermediary point (not all deprecations
> removed), release Solr 10.0 four months later, who cares? Solr 9.0 will be
> the release with many new features and Java 11 as minimum requirement.
>
>
>
> I would really, really not start and fuck up the release process for 8.x!
> Why not release 8.11.1 soon, if you have any changes in Solr to do? Why do
> this release needs to be called 8.12? It is just a version number, so why
> the heck this big issues? I won’t think that Solr will add any major
> features before Solr 9. So what is your exact problem?
>
>
>
> Sorry, but this discussion is complete nonsense. Its just version numbers
> and some hick-hack between two parties that disagree. Keep calm and don’t
> try to make it overcomplicated!
>
>
>
> I never said that we should kill or delete branch_8x. It can stay there
> forever. I just suggested to make it read-only and add a note. Unless
> there’s really a need to do some 8.12 release (in which case, I’d fork 8.11
> branch and move Lucene) I see no reason to act and fuck up the repositories
> of both projects which have now a very clear state.
>
>
>
> Uwe
>
>
>
> -----
>
> Uwe Schindler
>
> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
>
> https://www.thetaphi.de
>
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>
>
>
> *From:* Gus Heck <gus.heck@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 21, 2021 5:05 PM
> *To:* dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
> *Subject:* Re: What should we do of branch_8x?
>
>
>
> Release of Solr 8.12 It should require the current lucene-solr 8.x branch
> to remove the lucene bits and declare a dependency on lucene 8.11 lucene,
> that bit shouldn't be too hard if done soon... and the release process for
> 8.x would not publish a lucene artifact which is likely the harder bit. I
> think the option should be open assuming someone is willing to do that
> work.What should not be an option is any further lucene releases on 8.x
> and I'd be very leery of any attempt to consume lucene 9.0 on Solr 8.x
>
>
>
> The Lucene guarantees are irrelevant unless someone contemplates releasing
> an 8.12 lucene, and I really think that would require a positive vote from
> the Lucene PMC (which sounds very unlikely since I see fingers twitching
> over the -1 holsters there :) )
>
>
>
> So while I don't favor deleting the entire solr 8.x branch I think it's
> now fine to remove lucene from it.
>
>
>
> To make things pretty, one could push the 8.x branch to the solr repo
> AFTER lucene is removed, but that sounds like busy work unless there is
> some formal or financial need to close the old repo. They are now fully
> separate projects and what solr does with the non-lucene bits is not a
> concern to lucene pmc (though almost all of us are on both committees of
> course, but hat wearing etc..)
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:43 AM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I dunno, this seems really crazy to me. Splitting out solr into its
> own repository and allowing it to be released independently from
> lucene has already been done, lots of work :) Why not just move
> forwards?
>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:16 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:31 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, I just don't understand the implications of what you are
> suggesting.
> >>
> >> The code in question is lucene+solr combined, and the build system and
> >> packaging and everything only knows how to do that. So are you forking
> >> all the lucene code into the solr repo too?
> >
> >
> > Need to split it up and remove the Lucene code from there in order to be
> able to release Solr independently. We can do so later (I'm currently on
> travel), if/when needed.
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't really understand your need to have a branch_8x. we can nuke
> >> it, and you can do any of this from a branch_8_11 some other day, no?
> >
> >
> > I guess we can, just don't know the divergence. Just to be on the safer
> side, don't want to lose access to the branch_8x over a weekend before I or
> persons more knowledgeable (on the differences between the branches) than I
> get a chance to review the situation. Hence, I just copied the branch there
> for the moment.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:57 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
> >> > I never expressed any intention of doing so. Besides, is it even
> possible (ASF policies wise)?
> >> >
> >> > This is a weekend, and I feel bad holding up the 9.0 release (since
> this is a blocker). Solr PMC can decide later on Solr's releases, and hence
> I'm going to copy this branch_8x over to Solr repo's
> "lucene-solr/branch_8x" branch.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:14 PM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:42 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> >> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sounds good, Rob. Should I copy over the branch_8x to the solr
> repo until we have further clarity on the course of action to be taken with
> Solr releases?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:10 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nope, it isn't crazy. I am trying to ensure the backwards
> >> >> >> compatibility that we have is on solid, sustainable footing
> before we
> >> >> >> release a new version promising double the back compat.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:37 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> >> >> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Solr doesn't have backward compatability tests, only Lucene has.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > That's why I proposed leaving the door open for a Solr 8.12
> release based on already released 8.11 Lucene and not releasing any further
> 8.x minor version release of Lucene.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > As I said, if that's problematic to do on branch_8x of
> lucene-solr, then we can do so in the solr repo. If some urgent action to
> nuke the branch is to be taken, please give some time to explore
> alternatives that affect Solr's developement.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Holding up Lucene 9.0 release for removal of branch_8x is
> lunacy, not the continued existence of this branch in the shared repo,
> since a future course of action should be deliberated upon before nuking
> the branch.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 5:34 pm Uwe Schindler, <uwe@thetaphi.de>
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I fully agree with Robert here.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of
> this. Once we released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index
> file format will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0
> will refuse to read.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have index
> format changes and minor version numbers are not persisted.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still want
> one, hold 9.0 release and add precautions for this.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr and
> just add Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so
> Solr 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to
> it in GitHub. Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene main I
> to branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes!
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Uwe
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir <
> rcmuir@gmail.com>:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards
> compatibility testing
> >> >> >> >>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat
> with
> >> >> >> >>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> >> >> >> >>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter
> must provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the
> change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance,
> etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <
> rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> I think we should remove this branch.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if
> i can
> >> >> >> >>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
> >> >> >> >>>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on
> people.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <
> jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are
> not going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> ________________________________
> >> >> >> >>>>> 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
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> Uwe Schindler
> >> >> >> >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
> >> >> >> >> https://www.thetaphi.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
>
> http://www.the111shift.com (play)
>


--
Adrien
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
All Solr users using 8x and they will need some time to get comfortable
with 9x . So, there is a good chance we may need to release an 8.12 based
on Lucene 8.11

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021, 8:22 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 to making branch_8x read-only as Uwe suggested
>
> I think Uwe's other point is also important: if we ever wanted to do a
> Solr 8.12, it'd probably be a better option to fork the 8.11 branch than to
> try to reuse branch_8x. So we don't need to tie the decision about what we
> want to do with branch_8x with future plans around an 8.12 release?
>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:48 PM Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>
>> This is of course all possible, but: WHY the heck do this?
>>
>>
>>
>> Lucene 9.0 will come out likely very soon. After that just update the
>> gradle file of Solr main and remove the temporary repository (better
>> comment it out). After that adapt some changes and release Solr 9.0.
>>
>>
>>
>> From that point on both projects have a clear split point and everybody
>> can make sure that the backwards compatibility is handled according to
>> project’s needs.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the Solr 9.0 release is a intermediary point (not all deprecations
>> removed), release Solr 10.0 four months later, who cares? Solr 9.0 will be
>> the release with many new features and Java 11 as minimum requirement.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would really, really not start and fuck up the release process for 8.x!
>> Why not release 8.11.1 soon, if you have any changes in Solr to do? Why do
>> this release needs to be called 8.12? It is just a version number, so why
>> the heck this big issues? I won’t think that Solr will add any major
>> features before Solr 9. So what is your exact problem?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but this discussion is complete nonsense. Its just version numbers
>> and some hick-hack between two parties that disagree. Keep calm and don’t
>> try to make it overcomplicated!
>>
>>
>>
>> I never said that we should kill or delete branch_8x. It can stay there
>> forever. I just suggested to make it read-only and add a note. Unless
>> there’s really a need to do some 8.12 release (in which case, I’d fork 8.11
>> branch and move Lucene) I see no reason to act and fuck up the repositories
>> of both projects which have now a very clear state.
>>
>>
>>
>> Uwe
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Uwe Schindler
>>
>> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
>>
>> https://www.thetaphi.de
>>
>> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Gus Heck <gus.heck@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 21, 2021 5:05 PM
>> *To:* dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: What should we do of branch_8x?
>>
>>
>>
>> Release of Solr 8.12 It should require the current lucene-solr 8.x branch
>> to remove the lucene bits and declare a dependency on lucene 8.11 lucene,
>> that bit shouldn't be too hard if done soon... and the release process for
>> 8.x would not publish a lucene artifact which is likely the harder bit. I
>> think the option should be open assuming someone is willing to do that
>> work.What should not be an option is any further lucene releases on 8.x
>> and I'd be very leery of any attempt to consume lucene 9.0 on Solr 8.x
>>
>>
>>
>> The Lucene guarantees are irrelevant unless someone contemplates
>> releasing an 8.12 lucene, and I really think that would require a positive
>> vote from the Lucene PMC (which sounds very unlikely since I see fingers
>> twitching over the -1 holsters there :) )
>>
>>
>>
>> So while I don't favor deleting the entire solr 8.x branch I think it's
>> now fine to remove lucene from it.
>>
>>
>>
>> To make things pretty, one could push the 8.x branch to the solr repo
>> AFTER lucene is removed, but that sounds like busy work unless there is
>> some formal or financial need to close the old repo. They are now fully
>> separate projects and what solr does with the non-lucene bits is not a
>> concern to lucene pmc (though almost all of us are on both committees of
>> course, but hat wearing etc..)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:43 AM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I dunno, this seems really crazy to me. Splitting out solr into its
>> own repository and allowing it to be released independently from
>> lucene has already been done, lots of work :) Why not just move
>> forwards?
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:16 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:31 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I just don't understand the implications of what you are
>> suggesting.
>> >>
>> >> The code in question is lucene+solr combined, and the build system and
>> >> packaging and everything only knows how to do that. So are you forking
>> >> all the lucene code into the solr repo too?
>> >
>> >
>> > Need to split it up and remove the Lucene code from there in order to
>> be able to release Solr independently. We can do so later (I'm currently on
>> travel), if/when needed.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I don't really understand your need to have a branch_8x. we can nuke
>> >> it, and you can do any of this from a branch_8_11 some other day, no?
>> >
>> >
>> > I guess we can, just don't know the divergence. Just to be on the safer
>> side, don't want to lose access to the branch_8x over a weekend before I or
>> persons more knowledgeable (on the differences between the branches) than I
>> get a chance to review the situation. Hence, I just copied the branch there
>> for the moment.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:57 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
>> >> > I never expressed any intention of doing so. Besides, is it even
>> possible (ASF policies wise)?
>> >> >
>> >> > This is a weekend, and I feel bad holding up the 9.0 release (since
>> this is a blocker). Solr PMC can decide later on Solr's releases, and hence
>> I'm going to copy this branch_8x over to Solr repo's
>> "lucene-solr/branch_8x" branch.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:14 PM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:42 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> >> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Sounds good, Rob. Should I copy over the branch_8x to the solr
>> repo until we have further clarity on the course of action to be taken with
>> Solr releases?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:10 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Nope, it isn't crazy. I am trying to ensure the backwards
>> >> >> >> compatibility that we have is on solid, sustainable footing
>> before we
>> >> >> >> release a new version promising double the back compat.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:37 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> >> >> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Solr doesn't have backward compatability tests, only Lucene
>> has.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > That's why I proposed leaving the door open for a Solr 8.12
>> release based on already released 8.11 Lucene and not releasing any further
>> 8.x minor version release of Lucene.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > As I said, if that's problematic to do on branch_8x of
>> lucene-solr, then we can do so in the solr repo. If some urgent action to
>> nuke the branch is to be taken, please give some time to explore
>> alternatives that affect Solr's developement.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Holding up Lucene 9.0 release for removal of branch_8x is
>> lunacy, not the continued existence of this branch in the shared repo,
>> since a future course of action should be deliberated upon before nuking
>> the branch.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 5:34 pm Uwe Schindler, <uwe@thetaphi.de>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I fully agree with Robert here.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of
>> this. Once we released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index
>> file format will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0
>> will refuse to read.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have index
>> format changes and minor version numbers are not persisted.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still want
>> one, hold 9.0 release and add precautions for this.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr and
>> just add Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so
>> Solr 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to
>> it in GitHub. Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene main I
>> to branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes!
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Uwe
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir <
>> rcmuir@gmail.com>:
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards
>> compatibility testing
>> >> >> >> >>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat
>> with
>> >> >> >> >>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>> >> >> >> >>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter
>> must provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the
>> change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance,
>> etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
>> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <
>> rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>> I think we should remove this branch.
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see
>> if i can
>> >> >> >> >>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
>> >> >> >> >>>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on
>> people.
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <
>> jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are
>> not going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >>>>> ________________________________
>> >> >> >> >>>>> 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
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> Uwe Schindler
>> >> >> >> >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
>> >> >> >> >> https://www.thetaphi.de
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
>>
>> http://www.the111shift.com (play)
>>
>
>
> --
> Adrien
>
Re: What should we do of branch_8x? [ In reply to ]
Hi,

If this is really needed, I'd propose the following:

- fork the branch_8_11 to solr's repo
- delete all subdirectories below lucene, keep common-build and other stuff.
- add a single ivy.xml there that refers to all lucene jars of 8.11.x (latest)
- adapt solr's "copy-lucene-jars" ant task to copy the ivy output dir
- delete the lucene stuff from release wizard.

This is quick and easy. Adapting Gradle for a minor release is too hard.

Am 21. November 2021 21:34:40 UTC schrieb Noble Paul <noble.paul@gmail.com>:
>All Solr users using 8x and they will need some time to get comfortable
>with 9x . So, there is a good chance we may need to release an 8.12 based
>on Lucene 8.11
>
>On Mon, Nov 22, 2021, 8:22 AM Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 to making branch_8x read-only as Uwe suggested
>>
>> I think Uwe's other point is also important: if we ever wanted to do a
>> Solr 8.12, it'd probably be a better option to fork the 8.11 branch than to
>> try to reuse branch_8x. So we don't need to tie the decision about what we
>> want to do with branch_8x with future plans around an 8.12 release?
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:48 PM Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>>
>>> This is of course all possible, but: WHY the heck do this?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lucene 9.0 will come out likely very soon. After that just update the
>>> gradle file of Solr main and remove the temporary repository (better
>>> comment it out). After that adapt some changes and release Solr 9.0.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From that point on both projects have a clear split point and everybody
>>> can make sure that the backwards compatibility is handled according to
>>> project’s needs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If the Solr 9.0 release is a intermediary point (not all deprecations
>>> removed), release Solr 10.0 four months later, who cares? Solr 9.0 will be
>>> the release with many new features and Java 11 as minimum requirement.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would really, really not start and fuck up the release process for 8.x!
>>> Why not release 8.11.1 soon, if you have any changes in Solr to do? Why do
>>> this release needs to be called 8.12? It is just a version number, so why
>>> the heck this big issues? I won’t think that Solr will add any major
>>> features before Solr 9. So what is your exact problem?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, but this discussion is complete nonsense. Its just version numbers
>>> and some hick-hack between two parties that disagree. Keep calm and don’t
>>> try to make it overcomplicated!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I never said that we should kill or delete branch_8x. It can stay there
>>> forever. I just suggested to make it read-only and add a note. Unless
>>> there’s really a need to do some 8.12 release (in which case, I’d fork 8.11
>>> branch and move Lucene) I see no reason to act and fuck up the repositories
>>> of both projects which have now a very clear state.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uwe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Uwe Schindler
>>>
>>> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
>>>
>>> https://www.thetaphi.de
>>>
>>> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Gus Heck <gus.heck@gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 21, 2021 5:05 PM
>>> *To:* dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: What should we do of branch_8x?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Release of Solr 8.12 It should require the current lucene-solr 8.x branch
>>> to remove the lucene bits and declare a dependency on lucene 8.11 lucene,
>>> that bit shouldn't be too hard if done soon... and the release process for
>>> 8.x would not publish a lucene artifact which is likely the harder bit. I
>>> think the option should be open assuming someone is willing to do that
>>> work.What should not be an option is any further lucene releases on 8.x
>>> and I'd be very leery of any attempt to consume lucene 9.0 on Solr 8.x
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Lucene guarantees are irrelevant unless someone contemplates
>>> releasing an 8.12 lucene, and I really think that would require a positive
>>> vote from the Lucene PMC (which sounds very unlikely since I see fingers
>>> twitching over the -1 holsters there :) )
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So while I don't favor deleting the entire solr 8.x branch I think it's
>>> now fine to remove lucene from it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To make things pretty, one could push the 8.x branch to the solr repo
>>> AFTER lucene is removed, but that sounds like busy work unless there is
>>> some formal or financial need to close the old repo. They are now fully
>>> separate projects and what solr does with the non-lucene bits is not a
>>> concern to lucene pmc (though almost all of us are on both committees of
>>> course, but hat wearing etc..)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:43 AM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I dunno, this seems really crazy to me. Splitting out solr into its
>>> own repository and allowing it to be released independently from
>>> lucene has already been done, lots of work :) Why not just move
>>> forwards?
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:16 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:31 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Sorry, I just don't understand the implications of what you are
>>> suggesting.
>>> >>
>>> >> The code in question is lucene+solr combined, and the build system and
>>> >> packaging and everything only knows how to do that. So are you forking
>>> >> all the lucene code into the solr repo too?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Need to split it up and remove the Lucene code from there in order to
>>> be able to release Solr independently. We can do so later (I'm currently on
>>> travel), if/when needed.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't really understand your need to have a branch_8x. we can nuke
>>> >> it, and you can do any of this from a branch_8_11 some other day, no?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I guess we can, just don't know the divergence. Just to be on the safer
>>> side, don't want to lose access to the branch_8x over a weekend before I or
>>> persons more knowledgeable (on the differences between the branches) than I
>>> get a chance to review the situation. Hence, I just copied the branch there
>>> for the moment.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:57 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>>> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
>>> >> > I never expressed any intention of doing so. Besides, is it even
>>> possible (ASF policies wise)?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > This is a weekend, and I feel bad holding up the 9.0 release (since
>>> this is a blocker). Solr PMC can decide later on Solr's releases, and hence
>>> I'm going to copy this branch_8x over to Solr repo's
>>> "lucene-solr/branch_8x" branch.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:14 PM Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:42 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>>> >> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Sounds good, Rob. Should I copy over the branch_8x to the solr
>>> repo until we have further clarity on the course of action to be taken with
>>> Solr releases?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:10 pm Robert Muir, <rcmuir@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Nope, it isn't crazy. I am trying to ensure the backwards
>>> >> >> >> compatibility that we have is on solid, sustainable footing
>>> before we
>>> >> >> >> release a new version promising double the back compat.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:37 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>>> >> >> >> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > Solr doesn't have backward compatability tests, only Lucene
>>> has.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > That's why I proposed leaving the door open for a Solr 8.12
>>> release based on already released 8.11 Lucene and not releasing any further
>>> 8.x minor version release of Lucene.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > As I said, if that's problematic to do on branch_8x of
>>> lucene-solr, then we can do so in the solr repo. If some urgent action to
>>> nuke the branch is to be taken, please give some time to explore
>>> alternatives that affect Solr's developement.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > Holding up Lucene 9.0 release for removal of branch_8x is
>>> lunacy, not the continued existence of this branch in the shared repo,
>>> since a future course of action should be deliberated upon before nuking
>>> the branch.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 5:34 pm Uwe Schindler, <uwe@thetaphi.de>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> Hi,
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> I fully agree with Robert here.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of
>>> this. Once we released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index
>>> file format will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0
>>> will refuse to read.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have index
>>> format changes and minor version numbers are not persisted.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still want
>>> one, hold 9.0 release and add precautions for this.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr and
>>> just add Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so
>>> Solr 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection to
>>> it in GitHub. Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene main I
>>> to branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes!
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> Uwe
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert Muir <
>>> rcmuir@gmail.com>:
>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards
>>> compatibility testing
>>> >> >> >> >>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat
>>> with
>>> >> >> >> >>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya
>>> >> >> >> >>> <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
>>> >> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter
>>> must provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the
>>> change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance,
>>> etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight."
>>> >> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <
>>> rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>>> I think we should remove this branch.
>>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see
>>> if i can
>>> >> >> >> >>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule.
>>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards
>>> >> >> >> >>>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on
>>> people.
>>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <
>>> jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>>>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are
>>> not going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x?
>>> >> >> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >> >> >>>>> ________________________________
>>> >> >> >> >>>>> 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
>>> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >> --
>>> >> >> >> >> Uwe Schindler
>>> >> >> >> >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
>>> >> >> >> >> https://www.thetaphi.de
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
>>>
>>> http://www.the111shift.com (play)
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Adrien
>>

--
Uwe Schindler
Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen
https://www.thetaphi.de

1 2  View All