lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net>
Subject Re: 7.0 Release Update
Date Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:18:28 GMT
Thanks Varun, and Uwe. I'll freeze stuff on 7.0 and work on the release now.

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 1:27 AM Varun Thacker <varun@vthacker.in> wrote:

> Hi Anshum,
>
> SOLR-11228 was the only fix which I ported from 7.1 to both branch_6_6 and
> branch_7_0 . I don't plan on backporting any other changes from 7.1 to 6.6.1
>
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi Anshum,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’d like to get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8689 in, it’s
>> marked as blocker. It would be a bit embarrassing, if we release Solr 7
>> approximately at same time like Java 9 and it does not work on our
>> supported platforms. On Linux it works since beginning of this year, but
>> the windows shell scripts were broken. I am just waiting for comments on
>> this issue about the GC log file handling (unfortunately, I have to ignore
>> custom GC_LOG_OPTS on Java 9, because the windows shell does not allow to
>> rewrite the arguments in the same way like UNIX allows with reg exes).
>>
>>
>>
>> Yesterday (before your mail), I already backported a Hadoop 2.7.2 ->
>> 2.7.4 update, so it works now with Java 9. This made the ugly workaround
>> obsolete (changing java.version sysprop temporarily). This fix is now in
>> 6.6.1 and 7.0 branch.
>>
>>
>>
>> Uwe
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Uwe Schindler
>>
>> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
>>
>> http://www.thetaphi.de
>>
>> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Anshum Gupta [mailto:anshum@anshumgupta.net]
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 3:31 AM
>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>> *Subject:* Re: 7.0 Release Update
>>
>>
>>
>> Let's not commit more stuff to 7.0, unless it's a blocker as it gets hard
>> to track.
>>
>> At this time, the only commits that would be going in to 7.0 are the ones
>> that Varun spoke to me about back porting.
>>
>> Once that is done, I'll cut an RC (most likely tomorrow). In the
>> meanwhile, I'll work on the release notes, and making sure that the CHANGES
>> are good for 7.0.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anshum
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 8:33 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've added SOLR-11183 to the release branch. Please let me know if
>> someone has any concerns.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ishan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Yonik Seeley <yseeley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11262
>> I don't know if it has implications for 7.0 or not.
>>
>> From the issue:
>> """This means that any code using PushWriter (via MapWriter or
>> IteratorWriter) will be broken if one tries to use XML response
>> format. This may easily go unnoticed if one is not using XML response
>> format in testing (JSON or binary is frequently used)."""
>>
>>
>> -Yonik
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Noble Paul <noble.paul@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > sorry for the last minute notice. I need to fix the folowing as well.
>> > It may take a few hours
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11239
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Andrzej Białecki
>> > <andrzej.bialecki@lucidworks.com> wrote:
>> >> Then, if I may be so bold, I’d like to slip in SOLR-11235, which is a
>> simple
>> >> AlreadyClosedException prevention fix. Patch is ready, tests are
>> passing.
>> >>
>> >> On 14 Aug 2017, at 19:17, Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Ab.
>> >>
>> >> I'll cut an RC on Wednesday, so that both, I get the time, and also
>> that the
>> >> tests get some time on Jenkins.
>> >>
>> >> Anshum
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:29 AM Andrzej Białecki
>> >> <andrzej.bialecki@lucidworks.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> I’ve committed the fix for SOLR-11221 to branch_7_0 (and branch_7x
and
>> >>> master).
>> >>>
>> >>> On 12 Aug 2017, at 02:20, Andrzej Białecki
>> >>> <andrzej.bialecki@lucidworks.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Anshum,
>> >>>
>> >>> The patch for SOLR-11221 is ready, with one caveat - it required
>> larger
>> >>> changes than I thought, so there’s a sizeable chunk of new code that
>> is not
>> >>> so well tested… I added a test that used to fail without this change,
>> and
>> >>> manual testing confirms that metrics are now correctly reported after
>> core
>> >>> reloads.
>> >>>
>> >>> We could postpone this fix to 7.0.1 if there are objections, but I
>> think
>> >>> it should go in to 7.0 - without the fix JMX reporting is surely
>> broken,
>> >>> with the fix it’s only a possibility ;)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 11 Aug 2017, at 19:59, Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for the report Mark!
>> >>>
>> >>> and yes, I'll wait until the JMX issue is fixed.
>> >>>
>> >>> Anshum
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yeah, let's not release a major version with JMX monitoring broken.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Here is a 30 run test report for the 7.0 branch:
>> >>>> http://apache-solr-7-0.bitballoon.com/20170811
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - Mark
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:02 PM Tomas Fernandez Lobbe <
>> tflobbe@apple.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Lets fix it before releasing. I’d hate to release with a known
>> critical
>> >>>>> bug.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hi Ab,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> How quickly are we talking about? If you suggest, we could wait,
>> >>>>> depending upon the impact, and the time required to fix it.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Anshum
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 12:28 PM Andrzej Białecki
>> >>>>> <andrzej.bialecki@lucidworks.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I just discovered SOLR-11221, which basically breaks JMX
>> monitoring. We
>> >>>>>> could either release with “known issues” and then quickly
do
>> 7.0.1, or wait
>> >>>>>> until it’s fixed.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 10 Aug 2017, at 18:55, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I'll generate a test report for the 7.0 branch tonight so
we can
>> >>>>>> evaluate that for an rc as well.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> - Mark
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:32 PM Anshum Gupta <
>> anshum@anshumgupta.net>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Good news!
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I don't see any 'blockers' for 7.0 anymore, which means,
after
>> giving
>> >>>>>>> Jenkins a couple of days, I'll cut out an RC. I intend
to do this
>> on
>> >>>>>>> Wednesday/Thursday, unless a blocker comes up, which
I hope
>> shouldn't be the
>> >>>>>>> case.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Anshum
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM Steve Rowe <sarowe@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I worked through the list of issues with the
>> >>>>>>>> "numeric-tries-to-points” label and marked those
as 7.0 Blocker
>> that seemed
>> >>>>>>>> reasonable, on the assumption that we should at
a minimum give
>> clear error
>> >>>>>>>> messages for points non-compatibility.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> If others don’t agree with the Blocker assessments
I’ve made, I’m
>> >>>>>>>> willing to discuss on the issues.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I plan on starting to work on the remaining 7.0
blockers now.  I
>> >>>>>>>> would welcome assistance in clearing them up.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Here’s a JIRA query to see just the remaining
7.0 blockers, of
>> which
>> >>>>>>>> there are currently 12:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> <
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+in+(SOLR,LUCENE)+AND+fixVersion=7.0+AND+priority=Blocker+AND+resolution=Unresolved
>> >
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>> Steve
>> >>>>>>>> www.lucidworks.com
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> > On Jul 25, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Anshum Gupta <
>> anshum@anshumgupta.net>
>> >>>>>>>> > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>> > I will *try* to get to it, but can't confirm.
If someone else
>> has a
>> >>>>>>>> > spare cycle and can take it up before I get
to it, please do.
>> >>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>> > -Anshum
>> >>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM Cassandra
Targett
>> >>>>>>>> > <casstargett@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> > I believe the only remaining blocker to SOLR-10803
(to mark all
>> >>>>>>>> > Trie*
>> >>>>>>>> > fields as deprecated) is SOLR-11023, which
Hoss was working
>> on. As
>> >>>>>>>> > he
>> >>>>>>>> > noted last night, he is off for vacation for
the next 2 weeks.
>> Is
>> >>>>>>>> > anyone else available to work on it so 7.0
isn't stalled for 2+
>> >>>>>>>> > more
>> >>>>>>>> > weeks?
>> >>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>> > Now would also be a good time to look over
any other bugs with
>> >>>>>>>> > PointFields and make a case if any should be
considered
>> blockers
>> >>>>>>>> > for
>> >>>>>>>> > 7.0. I think they all share a label:
>> >>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20numeric-tries-to-points
>> >>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Chris Hostetter
>> >>>>>>>> > <hossman_lucene@fucit.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>>>> > > : So, my overall point is that if A) we
agree that we want to
>> >>>>>>>> > > deprecate
>> >>>>>>>> > > : Trie* numeric fields, and B) we want
to hold up the 7.0
>> release
>> >>>>>>>> > > until
>> >>>>>>>> > > : that's done, it's more than just updating
the example
>> schemas
>> >>>>>>>> > > if we
>> >>>>>>>> > > : want to ensure a quality app for users.
We still need to
>> fix
>> >>>>>>>> > > the tests
>> >>>>>>>> > > : and also fix bugs that are going to
be really painful for
>> >>>>>>>> > > users. And
>> >>>>>>>> > > : to get all that done soon, we definitely
need some more
>> >>>>>>>> > > volunteers.
>> >>>>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>>>> > > I've beefed up the description of SOLR-10807
with tips on how
>> >>>>>>>> > > people can
>> >>>>>>>> > > help out...
>> >>>>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10807
>> >>>>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>>>> > > -Hoss
>> >>>>>>>> > > http://www.lucidworks.com/
>> >>>>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>>>> > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>>>>>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> >>>>>>>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> >>>>>>>> > >
>> >>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>>>>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> >>>>>>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> >>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> - Mark
>> >>>>>> about.me/markrmiller
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> - Mark
>> >>>> about.me/markrmiller
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > -----------------------------------------------------
>> > Noble Paul
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message