It looks like someone tried to make it a blocker once before... And it's actually a duplicate of an earlier issue ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9818). I guess its a question of whether or not overall quality has a bearing on the decision to release. As it turns out the screen shot I posted to the issue is less than half of the shards that eventually got created since there was an outstanding queue of requests still processing at the time. I'm now having to delete 50 or so cores, which luckily are small 100 Mb initial testing cores, not the 20GB cores we'll be testing on in the near future. It more or less makes it impossible to recommend the use of the admin UI for anything other than read only observation of the cluster. Now imagine someone leaves a browser window open and forgets about it rather than browsing away or closing the window, not knowing that it's silently pumping out requests after showing an error... would completely hose a node, and until they tracked down the source of the requests, (hope he didn't go home) it would be impossible to resolve...
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 1:25 PM Adrien Grand <[email protected]> wrote: > Releasing a new major is very challenging on its own, I'd rather not > call it a blocker and delay the release for it since this isn't a new > regression in 8.0: it looks like a problem that has affected Solr > since at least 6.3? I'm not familiar with the UI code at all, but > maybe this is something that could get fixed before we build a RC? > > > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 6:06 PM Gus Heck <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'd like to suggest that > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10211 be promoted to block > 8.0. I just got burned by it a second time. > > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:05 PM Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Cool, > >> > >> I am working on giving my best release time guess as possible on the > FOSDEM conference! > >> > >> Uwe > >> > >> ----- > >> Uwe Schindler > >> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > >> http://www.thetaphi.de > >> eMail: [email protected] > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Adrien Grand <[email protected]> > >> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 5:33 PM > >> > To: Lucene Dev <[email protected]> > >> > Subject: Re: Lucene/Solr 8.0 > >> > > >> > +1 to release 7.7 and 8.0 in a row starting on the week of February > 4th. > >> > > >> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:23 PM jim ferenczi <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Hi, > >> > > As we agreed some time ago I'd like to start on releasing 8.0. The > branch is > >> > already created so we can start the process anytime now. Unless there > are > >> > objections I'd like to start the feature freeze next week in order to > build the > >> > first candidate the week after. > >> > > We'll also need a 7.7 release but I think we can handle both with > Alan so > >> > the question now is whether we are ok to start the release process or > if there > >> > are any blockers left ;). > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Le mar. 15 janv. 2019 à 11:35, Alan Woodward <[email protected]> > >> > a écrit : > >> > >> > >> > >> I’ve started to work through the various deprecations on the new > master > >> > branch. There are a lot of them, and I’m going to need some > assistance for > >> > several of them, as it’s not entirely clear what to do. > >> > >> > >> > >> I’ll open two overarching issues in JIRA, one for lucene and one > for Solr, > >> > with lists of the deprecations that need to be removed in each one. > I’ll create > >> > a shared branch on gitbox to work against, and push the changes I’ve > already > >> > done there. We can then create individual JIRA issues for any > changes that > >> > are more involved than just deleting code. > >> > >> > >> > >> All assistance gratefully received, particularly for the Solr > deprecations > >> > where there’s a lot of code I’m unfamiliar with. > >> > >> > >> > >> On 8 Jan 2019, at 09:21, Alan Woodward <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> I think the current plan is to do a 7.7 release at the same time > as 8.0, to > >> > handle any last-minute deprecations etc. So let’s keep those jobs > enabled > >> > for now. > >> > >> > >> > >> On 8 Jan 2019, at 09:10, Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> > >> > >> I will start and add the branch_8x jobs to Jenkins once I have > some time > >> > later today. > >> > >> > >> > >> The question: How to proceed with branch_7x? Should we stop using > it > >> > and release 7.6.x only (so we would use branch_7_6 only for > bugfixes), or > >> > are we planning to one more Lucene/Solr 7.7? In the latter case I > would keep > >> > the jenkins jobs enabled for a while. > >> > >> > >> > >> Uwe > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- > >> > >> Uwe Schindler > >> > >> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > >> > >> http://www.thetaphi.de > >> > >> eMail: [email protected] > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Alan Woodward <[email protected]> > >> > >> Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 11:30 AM > >> > >> To: [email protected] > >> > >> Subject: Re: Lucene/Solr 8.0 > >> > >> > >> > >> 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]> > >> > 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]> 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%20LU > >> > CENE)%20AND%20priority%20%3D%20Blocker%20and%20status%20%3D%2 > >> > 0open%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]> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:38 AM Alan Woodward > >> > <[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]> > >> > 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]> 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]> > >> > 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]> 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]> 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]> 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]> 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]> 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]> 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]> 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]> 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 > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> 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]> 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 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]> 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%3DBlocke > >> > r%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]> a écrit : > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> Đạt, is > 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]> 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%3DBlocke > >> > r%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20 > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> Le lun. 3 sept. 2018 à 10:36, jim ferenczi > >> > <[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]> 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]> 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]> 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]> 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]> 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]> 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]> 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). 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]> 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) > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> to leverage impacts so that queries > that > >> > incorporate queries on feature > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> fields > >> > (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]> 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]> 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 > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [2] > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8020 > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [3] > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8007 > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [4] > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4198 > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [5] > >> > 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 > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > [7] > >> > 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: dev- > >> > [email protected] > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev- > >> > [email protected] > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > ----------------------------------------------------------- > >> > ---------- > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev- > >> > [email protected] > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev- > >> > [email protected] > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> -- > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, > >> > Developer, Author, Speaker > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> LinkedIn: > http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > >> > | Book: http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > - > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev- > >> > [email protected] > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev- > >> > [email protected] > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > -- > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, > >> > Author, Speaker > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | > Book: > >> > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev- > >> > [email protected] > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev- > >> > [email protected] > >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > >> >> >>> -- > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > >> >> >>> Nicholas Knize, Ph.D., GISP > >> > >> >> >>> Geospatial Software Guy | Elasticsearch > >> > >> >> >>> Apache Lucene Committer > >> > >> >> >>> [email protected] > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> -- > >> > >> >> >> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, > >> > Speaker > >> > >> >> >> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: > >> > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Adrien > >> > >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Lucene/Solr Search Committer (PMC), Developer, Author, Speaker > >> > >> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: > >> > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Lucene/Solr Search Committer (PMC), Developer, Author, Speaker > >> > >> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: > >> > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Adrien > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > > > > > -- > > http://www.the111shift.com > > > > -- > Adrien > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- http://www.the111shift.com
