Mailing List Archive

1 2  View All
Re: Lucene 9.2 release [ In reply to ]
Alan, what's the exact JDK vendor/ release number you used that had
this problem? If we can reproduce it then we'd know where to look
(bisect until we know javadoc works correctly).

D.

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:33 AM Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still here... should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry here is, that minor versions could depend on the distributor.
>
> This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify
> which version numbers are used by packaging openjdk for various
> releases. Realistically, the JDK part (standard library) is nearly the
> same in all/ most of them? The least that could be done is to apply
> the restriction to just a particular vendor/ release and emit a
> warning for unrecognized ones.
>
> Dawid

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 9.2 release [ In reply to ]
$ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-11.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java -version

openjdk version "11" 2018-09-25
OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11+28)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11+28, mixed mode)


> On 18 May 2022, at 09:35, Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alan, what's the exact JDK vendor/ release number you used that had
> this problem? If we can reproduce it then we'd know where to look
> (bisect until we know javadoc works correctly).
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:33 AM Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still here... should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry here is, that minor versions could depend on the distributor.
>>
>> This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify
>> which version numbers are used by packaging openjdk for various
>> releases. Realistically, the JDK part (standard library) is nearly the
>> same in all/ most of them? The least that could be done is to apply
>> the restriction to just a particular vendor/ release and emit a
>> warning for unrecognized ones.
>>
>> Dawid


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 9.2 release [ In reply to ]
Living in the past, aren't we? :)

D.

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:49 AM Alan Woodward <romseygeek@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> $ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-11.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java -version
>
> openjdk version "11" 2018-09-25
> OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11+28)
> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11+28, mixed mode)
>
>
> > On 18 May 2022, at 09:35, Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Alan, what's the exact JDK vendor/ release number you used that had
> > this problem? If we can reproduce it then we'd know where to look
> > (bisect until we know javadoc works correctly).
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:33 AM Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still here... should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry here is, that minor versions could depend on the distributor.
> >>
> >> This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify
> >> which version numbers are used by packaging openjdk for various
> >> releases. Realistically, the JDK part (standard library) is nearly the
> >> same in all/ most of them? The least that could be done is to apply
> >> the restriction to just a particular vendor/ release and emit a
> >> warning for unrecognized ones.
> >>
> >> Dawid
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: Lucene 9.2 release [ In reply to ]
Hi Alan,

I know the probem: This is the JDK 11 General Availability release (the
first one that came out) and it is buggy to hell (also Lucene crashes
hotspot with that one). This also has known issues with javadocs which were
fixed in later bugfix versions.

I think what you should do: Go To Eclipse Temurin / Adoptopen-JDK and
download the latest OpenJDK 11.0.15 release.

We could maybe add some checks in the Gradle Build using
java.lang.System.Version.current() class and check major/minor version for
minimum requirements.

Uwe

-----
Uwe Schindler
Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
https://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Woodward <romseygeek@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 10:49 AM
> To: Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com>; dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene 9.2 release
>
> $ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-11.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java -
> version
>
> openjdk version "11" 2018-09-25
> OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11+28)
> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11+28, mixed mode)
>
>
> > On 18 May 2022, at 09:35, Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Alan, what's the exact JDK vendor/ release number you used that had
> > this problem? If we can reproduce it then we'd know where to look
> > (bisect until we know javadoc works correctly).
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:33 AM Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still
here...
> should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry here is,
that
> minor versions could depend on the distributor.
> >>
> >> This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify
> >> which version numbers are used by packaging openjdk for various
> >> releases. Realistically, the JDK part (standard library) is nearly the
> >> same in all/ most of them? The least that could be done is to apply
> >> the restriction to just a particular vendor/ release and emit a
> >> warning for unrecognized ones.
> >>
> >> Dawid
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Lucene 9.2 release [ In reply to ]
Ah to add: OpenJDK releases do not vary between each other. The bugfix
version numbers should be aligned.

It may only happen that a specific vendor patches more security fixes in or
adds optional features (like the Temurin ones have Shenandoah GC, Oracle's
not).

The tools like javac or javadoc get bugfixes, but those are common to all
vendors.

Uwe

-----
Uwe Schindler
Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
https://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 11:21 AM
> To: 'dev@lucene.apache.org' <dev@lucene.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Lucene 9.2 release
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> I know the probem: This is the JDK 11 General Availability release (the
first one
> that came out) and it is buggy to hell (also Lucene crashes hotspot with
that
> one). This also has known issues with javadocs which were fixed in later
bugfix
> versions.
>
> I think what you should do: Go To Eclipse Temurin / Adoptopen-JDK and
> download the latest OpenJDK 11.0.15 release.
>
> We could maybe add some checks in the Gradle Build using
> java.lang.System.Version.current() class and check major/minor version for
> minimum requirements.
>
> Uwe
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
> https://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alan Woodward <romseygeek@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 10:49 AM
> > To: Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com>; dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene 9.2 release
> >
> > $ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-11.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java -
> > version
> >
> > openjdk version "11" 2018-09-25
> > OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11+28)
> > OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11+28, mixed mode)
> >
> >
> > > On 18 May 2022, at 09:35, Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Alan, what's the exact JDK vendor/ release number you used that had
> > > this problem? If we can reproduce it then we'd know where to look
> > > (bisect until we know javadoc works correctly).
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:33 AM Dawid Weiss
> <dawid.weiss@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still
here...
> > should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry here
is,
> that
> > minor versions could depend on the distributor.
> > >>
> > >> This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify
> > >> which version numbers are used by packaging openjdk for various
> > >> releases. Realistically, the JDK part (standard library) is nearly
the
> > >> same in all/ most of them? The least that could be done is to apply
> > >> the restriction to just a particular vendor/ release and emit a
> > >> warning for unrecognized ones.
> > >>
> > >> Dawid
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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: Lucene 9.2 release [ In reply to ]
I think this release is the first time I’ve used Java 11 since 2019, yes!

I’ll get the latest AdoptOpenJDK version and try and persuade my Mac to use it...

> On 18 May 2022, at 10:19, Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Living in the past, aren't we? :)
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:49 AM Alan Woodward <romseygeek@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> $ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-11.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java -version
>>
>> openjdk version "11" 2018-09-25
>> OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11+28)
>> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11+28, mixed mode)
>>
>>
>>> On 18 May 2022, at 09:35, Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Alan, what's the exact JDK vendor/ release number you used that had
>>> this problem? If we can reproduce it then we'd know where to look
>>> (bisect until we know javadoc works correctly).
>>>
>>> D.
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:33 AM Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still here... should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry here is, that minor versions could depend on the distributor.
>>>>
>>>> This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify
>>>> which version numbers are used by packaging openjdk for various
>>>> releases. Realistically, the JDK part (standard library) is nearly the
>>>> same in all/ most of them? The least that could be done is to apply
>>>> the restriction to just a particular vendor/ release and emit a
>>>> warning for unrecognized ones.
>>>>
>>>> Dawid
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene 9.2 release [ In reply to ]
Hi, I just wanted to note that I opened LUCENE-10578.
Maybe it'd be worth having the discussion in Jira?


2022?5?18?(?) 18:31 Alan Woodward <romseygeek@gmail.com>:

> I think this release is the first time I’ve used Java 11 since 2019, yes!
>
> I’ll get the latest AdoptOpenJDK version and try and persuade my Mac to
> use it...
>
> > On 18 May 2022, at 10:19, Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Living in the past, aren't we? :)
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:49 AM Alan Woodward <romseygeek@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> $ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-11.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java
> -version
> >>
> >> openjdk version "11" 2018-09-25
> >> OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11+28)
> >> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11+28, mixed mode)
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 18 May 2022, at 09:35, Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Alan, what's the exact JDK vendor/ release number you used that had
> >>> this problem? If we can reproduce it then we'd know where to look
> >>> (bisect until we know javadoc works correctly).
> >>>
> >>> D.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:33 AM Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still
> here... should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry
> here is, that minor versions could depend on the distributor.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify
> >>>> which version numbers are used by packaging openjdk for various
> >>>> releases. Realistically, the JDK part (standard library) is nearly the
> >>>> same in all/ most of them? The least that could be done is to apply
> >>>> the restriction to just a particular vendor/ release and emit a
> >>>> warning for unrecognized ones.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dawid
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: Lucene 9.2 release [ In reply to ]
Hi all,
Just a minor heads-up.
We will have a more fine-grained Java version check when starting
gradlew command shortly.
After PR #941 is merged into main, you need newer Java (17.0.3) for a build.

2022?5?18?(?) 19:00 Tomoko Uchida <tomoko.uchida.1111@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi, I just wanted to note that I opened LUCENE-10578.
> Maybe it'd be worth having the discussion in Jira?
>
>
> 2022?5?18?(?) 18:31 Alan Woodward <romseygeek@gmail.com>:
>>
>> I think this release is the first time I’ve used Java 11 since 2019, yes!
>>
>> I’ll get the latest AdoptOpenJDK version and try and persuade my Mac to use it...
>>
>> > On 18 May 2022, at 10:19, Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Living in the past, aren't we? :)
>> >
>> > D.
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:49 AM Alan Woodward <romseygeek@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> $ /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-11.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java -version
>> >>
>> >> openjdk version "11" 2018-09-25
>> >> OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11+28)
>> >> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11+28, mixed mode)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On 18 May 2022, at 09:35, Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Alan, what's the exact JDK vendor/ release number you used that had
>> >>> this problem? If we can reproduce it then we'd know where to look
>> >>> (bisect until we know javadoc works correctly).
>> >>>
>> >>> D.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:33 AM Dawid Weiss <dawid.weiss@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> I'd like to draw attention to my second question while we are still here... should we limit the OpenJDK distribution (for building)? My worry here is, that minor versions could depend on the distributor.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This is a valid concern but it'd take some trial and error to verify
>> >>>> which version numbers are used by packaging openjdk for various
>> >>>> releases. Realistically, the JDK part (standard library) is nearly the
>> >>>> same in all/ most of them? The least that could be done is to apply
>> >>>> the restriction to just a particular vendor/ release and emit a
>> >>>> warning for unrecognized ones.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Dawid
>> >>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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

1 2  View All