OK, Christmas caught up with me a bit… I’ve just created a branch for 8x from master, and am in the process of updating the master branch to version 9. New commits that should be included in the 8.0 release should also be back-ported to branch_8x from master.
This is not intended as a feature freeze, as I know there are still some things being worked on for 8.0; however, it should let us clean up master by removing as much deprecated code as possible, and give us an idea of any replacement work that needs to be done. > On 19 Dec 2018, at 15:13, David Smiley <[email protected]> wrote: > > January. > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 2:04 AM S G <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > It would be nice to see Solr 8 in January soon as there is an enhancement on > nested-documents we are waiting to get our hands on. > Any idea when Solr 8 would be out ? > > Thx > SG > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:34 PM David Smiley <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I see 10 JIRA issues matching this filter: project in (SOLR, LUCENE) AND > priority = Blocker and status = open and fixVersion = "master (8.0)" > click here: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20in%20(SOLR%2C%20LUCENE)%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20and%20status%20%3D%20open%20and%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%22master%20(8.0)%22%20 > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20in%20(SOLR%2C%20LUCENE)%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20and%20status%20%3D%20open%20and%20fixVersion%20%3D%20%22master%20(8.0)%22%20> > > Thru the end of the month, I intend to work on those issues not yet assigned. > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 4:51 AM Adrien Grand <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:38 AM Alan Woodward <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Now that 7.6 is out of the door (thanks Nick!) we should think about > > cutting the 8.0 branch and moving master to 9.0. I’ll volunteer to create > > the branch this week - say Wednesday? Then we should have some time to > > clean up the master branch and uncover anything that still needs to be done > > on 8.0 before we start the release process next year. > > > > On 22 Oct 2018, at 18:12, Cassandra Targett <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > I'm a bit delayed, but +1 on the 7.6 and 8.0 plan from me too. > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 7:18 AM Erick Erickson <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >> +1, this gives us all a chance to prioritize getting the blockers out > >> of the way in a careful manner. > >> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 7:56 AM jim ferenczi <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > > >> > +1 too. With this new perspective we could create the branch just after > >> > the 7.6 release and target the 8.0 release for January 2019 which gives > >> > almost 3 month to finish the blockers ? > >> > > >> > Le jeu. 18 oct. 2018 à 23:56, David Smiley <[email protected] > >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : > >> >> > >> >> +1 to a 7.6 —lots of stuff in there > >> >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:47 PM Nicholas Knize <[email protected] > >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> If we're planning to postpone cutting an 8.0 branch until a few weeks > >> >>> from now then I'd like to propose (and volunteer to RM) a 7.6 release > >> >>> targeted for late November or early December (following the typical 2 > >> >>> month release pattern). It feels like this might give a little > >> >>> breathing room for finishing up 8.0 blockers? And looking at the > >> >>> change log there appear to be a healthy list of features, bug fixes, > >> >>> and improvements to both Solr and Lucene that warrant a 7.6 release? > >> >>> Personally I wouldn't mind releasing the LatLonShape encoding changes > >> >>> in LUCENE-8521 and selective indexing work done in LUCENE-8496. Any > >> >>> objections or thoughts? > >> >>> > >> >>> - Nick > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 5:32 AM Đạt Cao Mạnh <[email protected] > >> >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Thanks Cassandra and Jim, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I created a blocker issue for Solr 8.0 SOLR-12883, currently in > >> >>>> jira/http2 branch there are a draft-unmature implementation of SPNEGO > >> >>>> authentication which enough to makes the test pass, this > >> >>>> implementation will be removed when SOLR-12883 gets resolved . > >> >>>> Therefore I don't see any problem on merging jira/http2 to master > >> >>>> branch in the next week. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 2:33 AM jim ferenczi <[email protected] > >> >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > But if you're working with a different assumption - that just the > >> >>>>> > existence of the branch does not stop Dat from still merging his > >> >>>>> > work and the work being included in 8.0 - then I agree, waiting > >> >>>>> > for him to merge doesn't need to stop the creation of the branch. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Yes that's my reasoning. This issue is a blocker so we won't release > >> >>>>> without it but we can work on the branch in the meantime and let > >> >>>>> other people work on new features that are not targeted to 8. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 à 20:51, Cassandra Targett > >> >>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> OK - I was making an assumption that the timeline for the first 8.0 > >> >>>>>> RC would be ASAP after the branch is created. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> It's a common perception that making a branch freezes adding new > >> >>>>>> features to the release, perhaps in an unofficial way (more of a > >> >>>>>> courtesy rather than a rule). But if you're working with a > >> >>>>>> different assumption - that just the existence of the branch does > >> >>>>>> not stop Dat from still merging his work and the work being > >> >>>>>> included in 8.0 - then I agree, waiting for him to merge doesn't > >> >>>>>> need to stop the creation of the branch. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> If, however, once the branch is there people object to Dat merging > >> >>>>>> his work because it's "too late", then the branch shouldn't be > >> >>>>>> created yet because we want to really try to clear that blocker for > >> >>>>>> 8.0. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Cassandra > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:13 PM jim ferenczi > >> >>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Ok thanks for answering. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > - I think Solr needs a couple more weeks since the work Dat is > >> >>>>>>> > doing isn't quite done yet. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> We can wait a few more weeks to create the branch but I don't > >> >>>>>>> think that one action (creating the branch) prevents the other > >> >>>>>>> (the work Dat is doing). > >> >>>>>>> HTTP/2 is one of the blocker for the release but it can be done in > >> >>>>>>> master and backported to the appropriate branch as any other > >> >>>>>>> feature ? We just need an issue with the blocker label to ensure > >> >>>>>>> that > >> >>>>>>> we don't miss it ;). Creating the branch early would also help in > >> >>>>>>> case you don't want to release all the work at once in 8.0.0. > >> >>>>>>> Next week was just a proposal, what I meant was soon because we > >> >>>>>>> target a release in a few months. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Le mer. 17 oct. 2018 à 17:52, Cassandra Targett > >> >>>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> IMO next week is a bit too soon for the branch - I think Solr > >> >>>>>>>> needs a couple more weeks since the work Dat is doing isn't quite > >> >>>>>>>> done yet. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Solr needs the HTTP/2 work Dat has been doing, and he told me > >> >>>>>>>> yesterday he feels it is nearly ready to be merged into master. > >> >>>>>>>> However, it does require a new release of Jetty to Solr is able > >> >>>>>>>> to retain Kerberos authentication support (Dat has been working > >> >>>>>>>> with that team to help test the changes Jetty needs to support > >> >>>>>>>> Kerberos with HTTP/2). They should get that release out soon, but > >> >>>>>>>> we are dependent on them a little bit. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> He can hopefully reply with more details on his status and what > >> >>>>>>>> else needs to be done. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Once Dat merges his work, IMO we should leave it in master for a > >> >>>>>>>> little bit. While he has been beasting and testing with Jenkins > >> >>>>>>>> as he goes along, I think it would be good to have all the > >> >>>>>>>> regular master builds work on it for a little bit also. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Of the other blockers, the only other large-ish one is to fully > >> >>>>>>>> remove Trie* fields, which some of us also discussed yesterday > >> >>>>>>>> and it seemed we concluded that Solr isn't really ready to do > >> >>>>>>>> that. The performance issues with single value lookups are a > >> >>>>>>>> major obstacle. It would be nice if someone with a bit more > >> >>>>>>>> experience with that could comment in the issue (SOLR-12632) > >> >>>>>>>> and/or unmark it as a blocker. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Cassandra > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 8:38 AM Erick Erickson > >> >>>>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> I find 9 open blockers for 8.0: > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20SOLR%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20AND%20status%20%3D%20OPEN > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20SOLR%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20AND%20status%20%3D%20OPEN> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> As David mentioned, many of the SOlr committers are at Activate, > >> >>>>>>>>> which > >> >>>>>>>>> ends Thursday so feedback (and work) may be a bit delayed. > >> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 8:11 AM David Smiley > >> >>>>>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> > Hi, > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> > Thanks for volunteering to do the 8.0 release Jim! > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> > Many of us are at the Activate Conference in Montreal. We had > >> >>>>>>>>> > a committers meeting where we discussed some of the blockers. > >> >>>>>>>>> > I think only a couple items were raised. I'll leave Dat to > >> >>>>>>>>> > discuss the one on HTTP2. On the Solr nested docs front, I > >> >>>>>>>>> > articulated one and we mostly came to a decision on how to do > >> >>>>>>>>> > it. It's not "hard" just a matter of how to hook in some > >> >>>>>>>>> > functionality so that it's user-friendly. I'll file an issue > >> >>>>>>>>> > for this. Inexplicably I'm sheepish about marking issues > >> >>>>>>>>> > "blocker" but I shouldn't be. I'll file that issue and look > >> >>>>>>>>> > at another issue or two that ought to be blockers. Nothing is > >> >>>>>>>>> > "hard" or tons of work that is in my sphere of work. > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> > On the Lucene side, I will commit > >> >>>>>>>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7875 > >> >>>>>>>>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7875> RE > >> >>>>>>>>> > MultiFields either late tonight or tomorrow when I have time. > >> >>>>>>>>> > It's ready to be committed; just sitting there. It's a minor > >> >>>>>>>>> > thing but important to make this change now before 8.0. > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> > I personally plan to spend more time on the upcoming weeks on > >> >>>>>>>>> > a few of these 8.0 things. > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> > ~ David > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:21 AM jim ferenczi > >> >>>>>>>>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >> Hi, > >> >>>>>>>>> >> We still have two blockers for the Lucene 8 release: > >> >>>>>>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7075?jql=(project%3D%22Lucene%20-%20Core%22%20%20OR%20project%3DSOLR)%20AND%20priority%3DBlocker%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20 > >> >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7075?jql=(project%3D%22Lucene%20-%20Core%22%20%20OR%20project%3DSOLR)%20AND%20priority%3DBlocker%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20> > >> >>>>>>>>> >> We're planning to work on these issues in the coming days, > >> >>>>>>>>> >> are there any other blockers (not in the list) on Solr side. > >> >>>>>>>>> >> Now that Lucene 7.5 is released I'd like to create a Lucene 8 > >> >>>>>>>>> >> branch soon (next week for instance ? ). There are some work > >> >>>>>>>>> >> to do to make sure that all tests pass, add the new version... > >> >>>>>>>>> >> I can take care of it if there are no objections. Creating > >> >>>>>>>>> >> the branch in advance would help to stabilize this version > >> >>>>>>>>> >> (people can continue to work on new features that are not > >> >>>>>>>>> >> targeted for 8.0) and > >> >>>>>>>>> >> we can discuss the best date for the release when all > >> >>>>>>>>> >> blockers are resolved. What do you think ? > >> >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >> Le mar. 18 sept. 2018 à 11:32, Adrien Grand > >> >>>>>>>>> >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : > >> >>>>>>>>> >>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>> Đạt, is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12639 > >> >>>>>>>>> >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12639> the right > >> >>>>>>>>> >>> issue for HTTP/2 support? Should we make it a blocker for > >> >>>>>>>>> >>> 8.0? > >> >>>>>>>>> >>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>> Le lun. 3 sept. 2018 à 23:37, Adrien Grand > >> >>>>>>>>> >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> For the record here is the JIRA query for blockers that > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> Erick referred to: > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12720?jql=(project%3D%22Lucene%20-%20Core%22%20%20OR%20project%3DSOLR)%20AND%20priority%3DBlocker%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20 > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12720?jql=(project%3D%22Lucene%20-%20Core%22%20%20OR%20project%3DSOLR)%20AND%20priority%3DBlocker%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> Le lun. 3 sept. 2018 à 10:36, jim ferenczi > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> écrit : > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> Ok thanks Đạt and Erick. I'll follow the blockers on Jira. > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> Đạt do you have an issue opened for the HTTP/2 support ? > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> Le ven. 31 août 2018 à 16:40, Erick Erickson > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> a écrit : > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> There's also the issue of what to do as far as removing > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Trie* support. > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> I think there's a blocker JIRA. > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> project = SOLR AND priority = Blocker AND resolution = > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Unresolved > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Shows 6 blockers > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 4:12 AM Đạt Cao Mạnh > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> <[email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > Hi Jim, > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > I really want to introduce the support of HTTP/2 into > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > Solr 8.0 (currently cooked in jira/http2 branch). The > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > changes of that branch are less than Star Burst effort > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > and closer to be merged into master branch. > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > Thanks! > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:55 PM jim ferenczi > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > <[email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> Hi all, > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> I'd like to get some feedback regarding the upcoming > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> Lucene/Solr 8 release. There are still some cleanups > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> and docs to add on the Lucene side but it seems that > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> all blockers are resolved. > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> From a Solr perspective are there any important > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> changes that need to be done or are we still good with > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> the October target for the release ? Adrien mentioned > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> the Star Burst effort some time ago, is it something > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> that is planned for 8 ? > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> Cheers, > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> Jim > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> Le mer. 1 août 2018 à 19:02, David Smiley > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> <[email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> Yes, that new BKD/Points based code is definitely > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> something we want in 8 or 7.5 -- it's a big deal. I > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> think it would also be awesome if we had highlighter > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> that could use the Weight.matches() API -- again for > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> either 7.5 or 8. I'm working on this on the > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> UnifiedHighlighter front and Alan from other aspects. > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> ~ David > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:51 PM Adrien Grand > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> I was hoping that we would release some bits of this > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> new support for geo shapes in 7.5 already. We are > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> already very close to being able to index points, > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> lines and polygons and query for intersection with > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> an envelope. It would be nice to add support for > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> other relations (eg. disjoint) and queries (eg. > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> polygon) but the current work looks already useful > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> to me. > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> Le mer. 1 août 2018 à 17:00, Robert Muir > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> : > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> My only other suggestion is we may want to get > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Nick's shape stuff into > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> the sandbox module at least for 8.0 so that it can > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> be tested out. I > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> think it looks like that wouldn't delay any October > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> target though? > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 9:51 AM, Adrien Grand > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > I'd like to revive this thread now that these new > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > optimizations for > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > collection of top docs are more usable and > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > enabled by default in > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > IndexSearcher > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8060 > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8060>). > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > Any > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > feedback about starting to work towards releasing > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > 8.0 and targeting October > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > 2018? > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > Le jeu. 21 juin 2018 à 09:31, Adrien Grand > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > écrit : > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> Hi Robert, > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> I agree we need to make it more usable before > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> 8.0. I would also like to > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> improve ReqOptSumScorer > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8204 > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8204>) > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> to leverage impacts so that queries that > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> incorporate queries on feature > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> fields > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8197 > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8197>) > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> in an optional > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> clause are also fast. > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> Le jeu. 21 juin 2018 à 03:06, Robert Muir > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> écrit : > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> How can the end user actually use the biggest > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> new feature: impacts and > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> BMW? As far as I can tell, the issue to > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> actually implement the > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> necessary API changes > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> (IndexSearcher/TopDocs/etc) is still open and > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> unresolved, although there are some interesting > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> ideas on it. This > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> seems like a really big missing piece, without > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> a proper API, the stuff > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> is not really usable. I also can't imagine a > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> situation where the API > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> could be introduced in a followup minor release > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> because it would be > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> too invasive. > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Adrien Grand > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > Hi all, > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > I would like to start discussing releasing > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > Lucene/Solr 8.0. Lucene 8 > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > already > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > has some good changes around scoring, notably > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > cleanups to > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > similarities[1][2][3], indexing of > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > impacts[4], and an implementation of > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > Block-Max WAND[5] which, once combined, allow > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > to run queries faster > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > when > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > total hit counts are not requested. > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [1] > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8116 > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8116> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [2] > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8020 > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8020> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [3] > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8007 > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8007> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [4] > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4198 > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4198> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [5] > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8135 > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8135> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > In terms of bug fixes, there is also a bad > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > relevancy bug[6] which is > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > only in > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > 8.0 because it required a breaking change[7] > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > to be implemented. > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [6] > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8031 > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8031> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [7] > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8134 > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8134> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > As usual, doing a new major release will also > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > help age out old codecs, > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > which > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > in-turn make maintenance easier: 8.0 will no > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > longer need to care about > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > the > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > fact that some codecs were initially > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > implemented with a random-access > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > API > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > for doc values, that pre-7.0 indices encoded > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > norms differently, or that > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > pre-6.2 indices could not record an index > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > sort. > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > I also expect that we will come up with ideas > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > of things to do for 8.0 > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > as we > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > feel that the next major is getting closer. > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > In terms of planning, I was > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > thinking that we could target something like > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > october 2018, which would > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > be > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > 12-13 months after 7.0 and 3-4 months from > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > now. > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > From a Solr perspective, the main change I'm > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > aware of that would be > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > worth > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > releasing a new major is the Star Burst > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > effort. Is it something we want > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > to > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > get in for 8.0? > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > Adrien > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> [email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> [email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> [email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> [email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> -- > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> Author, Speaker > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> <http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley> | Book: > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> <http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com/> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> [email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> > -- > >> >>>>>>>>> > Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, > >> >>>>>>>>> > Speaker > >> >>>>>>>>> > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > >> >>>>>>>>> > <http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley> | Book: > >> >>>>>>>>> > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > >> >>>>>>>>> > <http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com/> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> > >> >>> Nicholas Knize, Ph.D., GISP > >> >>> Geospatial Software Guy | Elasticsearch > >> >>> Apache Lucene Committer > >> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker > >> >> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > >> >> <http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley> | Book: > >> >> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > >> >> <http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com/> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> > > > > > -- > Adrien > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > -- > Lucene/Solr Search Committer (PMC), Developer, Author, Speaker > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > <http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley> | Book: > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > <http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com/>-- > Lucene/Solr Search Committer (PMC), Developer, Author, Speaker > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > <http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley> | Book: > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > <http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com/>
