lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erick Erickson <>
Subject Re: Lucene/Solr 7.5
Date Wed, 05 Sep 2018 15:56:31 GMT
Great, thanks!
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:44 AM jim ferenczi <> wrote:
> Sure it can wait a few days. Let's cut the branch next Monday and we can sync with Cassandra
to create the first RC when the ref guide is ready.
> Le mer. 5 sept. 2018 à 17:27, Erick Erickson <> a écrit
>> Jim:
>> I know it's the 11th hour, but WDYT about cutting the branch next
>> Monday? We see a flurry of activity (announcing a release does
>> that....) and waiting to cut the branch might be easiest all 'round.
>> Up to you of course, I can backport the test fixes I'd like for
>> instance and I'd like to get the upgraded ZooKeeper in 7.5.
>> Erick
>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 1:04 PM Cassandra Targett <> wrote:
>> >
>> > It's not so much the building of the RC as giving the content a detailed editorial
>> >
>> > The build/release process itself is well-documented and published with every
Ref Guide:
It was designed from the artifact process, so it's nearly identical as a process. It's really
barely a burden.
>> >
>> > In terms of preparing the content, there are a number of things I do:
>> >
>> > First, I try to ensure that every issue in CHANGES.txt that should be documented
has been documented. That involves an intensive review of CHANGES.txt and a comparison with
commits to find what might be missing, then chasing people down to see if they intend to make
changes or not. Assuming the person responds, then it's waiting for them to get their stuff
done. This is usually about 2-3 days of effort, before the waiting around for answers and/or
>> >
>> > Then I review every commit and read it for clarity and correct English usage.
Does it fit where someone put it? Does it explain what the author is hoping it explains? Also,
many of our authors are not native English writers, and deserve the assistance of an editor
to help put their work in the best possible light. In some cases, I feel I should extensively
edit the contribution, which occasionally involves also immersing myself into the change itself.
This is another 2-4 days of effort.
>> >
>> > Then there's this list of problems people commit all the time, many of which
I can often resolve reasonably quickly with find/replace:
>> >
>> > - sentences that don't end in periods
>> > - inconsistency with instances of "i.e.," and "e.g.," (not "i.e.", "ie:", "IE",
>> > - no spaces between words and punctuation (commas, colons, periods), such as
"here is :" or "word , word"
>> > - used sentence case for section titles instead of headline case
>> > - used abbreviations instead of the correct word ("ZK" instead of "ZooKeeper"
being the biggest one here, but also "params" instead of "parameters" is quite common)
>> > - misspellings like "Zookeeper" instead of "ZooKeeper, or "solr" instead of
>> > - config file names and parameter names/values not in monospace
>> > - lists of parameters are not properly formatted (should not be in tables)
>> >
>> > These are all to make the Ref Guide as consistent, cohesive, and easy to read
as possible. It may be written by 30 people but it shouldn't read like it is.
>> >
>> > Should I do all this while the commits are coming through? Sure, but the reality
is I can't. If we want to release the moment someone proposes a release, then most of my find/replace
list above needs to go into precommit so these problems don't make it into the Guide to begin
with. (Which might be onerous since we'd all get stalled waiting for someone to fix a typo...but
really, precommit is meant in part to find your typos so why should this be different?)
>> >
>> > It would always still need editorial review, however, and that's not something
we'll ever be able to fully automate. I'm more than happy to have a little help there, but
assume since people aren't doing it today they don't have time, don't feel they have the skills,
or don't want to bother. Or maybe I just kill myself for a level of quality no one else cares
about...not sure I can stop doing it though if I'm the RM.
>> >
>> > (as a side note on that though, if we do merge the releases someday, then whoever
RMs is going to have to wait for these editorial processes to be completed or the vote may
fail because the Ref Guide reads like crap.)
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 11:33 AM jim ferenczi <>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for explaining the situation Cassandra. I was planning to build the
first RC beginning of next week to give people a week to discover blockers. I can certainly
slow down things but I don't think that the timing
>> >> differs from other releases. I am not aware of the operations that are required
for the Ref guide release process but what do you think of sharing the tasks with the RM ?
We could even merge the two releases and make the RM responsible of both if the process is
documented.  I'd be happy to experiment this for the 7.5 release if you want.
>> >>
>> >> Le mar. 4 sept. 2018 à 17:55, Cassandra Targett <>
a écrit :
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm not objecting per se, but I feel like we used to propose a version
and then give people a week before the branch was cut. Maybe that was just RM choice? From
a personal perspective, I much prefer that model because the Ref Guide requires A LOT of my
attention and my work there kicks into high gear as soon as a release is proposed.
>> >>>
>> >>> Even though the artifact and Ref Guide release processes are separate
today, we want them to be a single process, so I need to act as though your timeframe for
the RC is the deadline for Ref Guide edits to do an RC of the Ref Guide at the same time.
That means I'm on your timetable, no matter what else I may have promised to my bosses and
colleagues. It's stressful already to try to get it all done - I usually don't finish everything
I want to do - and adding the burden of having to backport everything to 2 branches instead
of 1 just makes it tedious as well.
>> >>>
>> >>> Also, yesterday was a major holiday in the US, and as of this moment
it's not even noon on the East Coast, so there's a percentage of the community who may not
even have seen your proposal yet.
>> >>>
>> >>> I greatly appreciate that you've volunteered to do the release and are
energized to get it rolling, but is there a reason an RC has to be done by the beginning of
next week?
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:36 AM Joel Bernstein <>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> +1,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'll likely be adding some Solr RefGuide changes later in the week
to the 7.5 branch but I'll make sure they don't effect the build.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Joel Bernstein
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:52 AM jim ferenczi <>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks all,
>> >>>>> since there are no objections I am planning to cut the branch
for 7.5 tomorrow. I'll build the first RC early next week so there will be some room to merge
important bug fixes later this week. All blockers except SOLR-12727 seem to be merged/resolved,
I'll watch the remaining solr issue for updates.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Le mar. 4 sept. 2018 à 10:21, jim ferenczi <>
a écrit :
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Sure Jan, this is a nice cleanup, +1 to backport in 7x.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Le mar. 4 sept. 2018 à 10:16, Jan Høydahl <>
a écrit :
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Jim, we have some release process improvements in LUCENE-5143.
Basically, we'll only have one KEYS file instead of three plus those in the versioned folders
that we have today. And the release py script will start checking that the RM's key is present
in the KEYS file. Would you be ok with that being committed and you being the first RM to
use it for 7.5.0?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
>> >>>>>>> Cominvent AS -
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> 3. sep. 2018 kl. 10:42 skrev jim ferenczi <>:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Hi all,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> 7.4 has been released two months ago on June 29th and
we have new features, enhancements and fixes that are not released yet so I'd like to start
working on releasing Lucene/Solr 7.5.0.
>> >>>>>>> There's also a bad bug with index sorting that deletes
the wrong documents when delete by query is used:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I can create the 7.5 branch later this week and build
the first RC early next week if that works for everyone. Please let me know if there are bug
fixes that needs to be fixed in 7.5 and might not be ready by then.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>> Jim
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message