+1 to remove all content and leave behind a README in 8.x and 7.x, and it sounds like adding the .asf..yaml file could even prevent further commits?
I hope there weren't any consequences of having a few unintended commits in the 7x branch. Makes me feel it would be OK to handle this cleanup asynchronously to the 9.0 release. On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 10:14 AM Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > I checked a bit: branch_7x is also still alive and has some accidental > commits in it. So maybe we should do the same there. > > In general if we change this, don't forget to change github workflows: > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/.github/workflows/ant.yml > > Side note: I am missing the .asf.yaml file in the master branch of old repo. > Where is this information stored? This file was there also to protect > branches from writing (at least in github): > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/Git+-+.asf.yaml+features#Git.asf.yamlfeatures-BranchProtection > > Uwe > > ----- > Uwe Schindler > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > https://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 2:02 PM > > To: Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: What should we do of branch_8x? > > > > It looks like there is now general agreement on removing branch_8x? > > > > I wonder if we should actually remove it, which is prone to > > re-creating the branch by mistake, vs. replacing the content of the > > repository with a README that says that this branch is no longer under > > development like we did for the `master` branch. > > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 5:09 PM Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > +1 to remove / lock branch_8x in the lucene-solr repo, i.e. there will > > > not be an > > 8.12 release by Lucene PMC. > > > > > > Whether Solr needs to release an 8.12 from own repos or not can be > > discussed in dev@solr if/when needed. So far there is only loose talk, and I > > think Solr PMC's energy should be devoted to the Solr 9.0 release. > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > 22. nov. 2021 kl. 08:28 skrev Atri Sharma <a...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > +1, agree with Uwe. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 12:39 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > > > > <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> +1 to Uwe's suggestion > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, 22 Nov, 2021, 11:13 am Gus Heck, <gus.h...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> +1 to uwe's suggestion > > > >>> > > > >>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 10:42 PM Noble Paul <noble.p...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I think this is a reasonable suggestion Uwe. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> - We don't need to bring Gradle to 8.x > > > >>>> - We can release 8.12 from a fork of 8.11. > > > >>>> - we don't need to keep the Lucene source files in that branch. We > > > >>>> can > > nuke it and just keep the Lucene binaries > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021, 8:49 AM Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> > > wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Hi, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> If this is really needed, I'd propose the following: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> - fork the branch_8_11 to solr's repo > > > >>>>> - delete all subdirectories below lucene, keep common-build and > > > >>>>> other > > stuff. > > > >>>>> - add a single ivy.xml there that refers to all lucene jars of > > > >>>>> 8.11.x > > (latest) > > > >>>>> - adapt solr's "copy-lucene-jars" ant task to copy the ivy output > > > >>>>> dir > > > >>>>> - delete the lucene stuff from release wizard. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> This is quick and easy. Adapting Gradle for a minor release is too > > > >>>>> hard. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Am 21. November 2021 21:34:40 UTC schrieb Noble Paul > > <noble.p...@gmail.com>: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> All Solr users using 8x and they will need some time to get > > comfortable with 9x . So, there is a good chance we may need to release an > > 8.12 based on Lucene 8.11 > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021, 8:22 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> +1 to making branch_8x read-only as Uwe suggested > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I think Uwe's other point is also important: if we ever wanted to > > > >>>>>>> do a > > Solr 8.12, it'd probably be a better option to fork the 8.11 branch than to > > try to > > reuse branch_8x. So we don't need to tie the decision about what we want to > > do with branch_8x with future plans around an 8.12 release? > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:48 PM Uwe Schindler > > <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> This is of course all possible, but: WHY the heck do this? > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Lucene 9.0 will come out likely very soon. After that just > > > >>>>>>>> update the > > gradle file of Solr main and remove the temporary repository (better comment > > it out). After that adapt some changes and release Solr 9.0. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> From that point on both projects have a clear split point and > > everybody can make sure that the backwards compatibility is handled > > according to project’s needs. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> If the Solr 9.0 release is a intermediary point (not all > > > >>>>>>>> deprecations > > removed), release Solr 10.0 four months later, who cares? Solr 9.0 will be > > the > > release with many new features and Java 11 as minimum requirement. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> I would really, really not start and fuck up the release process > > > >>>>>>>> for > > 8.x! Why not release 8.11.1 soon, if you have any changes in Solr to do? Why > > do this release needs to be called 8.12? It is just a version number, so > > why the > > heck this big issues? I won’t think that Solr will add any major features > > before > > Solr 9. So what is your exact problem? > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Sorry, but this discussion is complete nonsense. Its just version > > numbers and some hick-hack between two parties that disagree. Keep calm and > > don’t try to make it overcomplicated! > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> I never said that we should kill or delete branch_8x. It can stay > > there forever. I just suggested to make it read-only and add a note. Unless > > there’s really a need to do some 8.12 release (in which case, I’d fork 8.11 > > branch and move Lucene) I see no reason to act and fuck up the repositories > > of > > both projects which have now a very clear state. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Uwe > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> ----- > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Uwe Schindler > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> https://www.thetaphi.de > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> From: Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 5:05 PM > > > >>>>>>>> To: dev <dev@lucene.apache.org> > > > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: What should we do of branch_8x? > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Release of Solr 8.12 It should require the current lucene-solr > > > >>>>>>>> 8.x > > branch to remove the lucene bits and declare a dependency on lucene 8.11 > > lucene, that bit shouldn't be too hard if done soon... and the release > > process for > > 8.x would not publish a lucene artifact which is likely the harder bit. I > > think the > > option should be open assuming someone is willing to do that work.What > > should not be an option is any further lucene releases on 8.x and I'd be > > very > > leery of any attempt to consume lucene 9.0 on Solr 8.x > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> The Lucene guarantees are irrelevant unless someone contemplates > > releasing an 8.12 lucene, and I really think that would require a positive > > vote > > from the Lucene PMC (which sounds very unlikely since I see fingers > > twitching > > over the -1 holsters there :) ) > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> So while I don't favor deleting the entire solr 8.x branch I > > > >>>>>>>> think it's > > now fine to remove lucene from it. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> To make things pretty, one could push the 8.x branch to the solr > > repo AFTER lucene is removed, but that sounds like busy work unless there is > > some formal or financial need to close the old repo. They are now fully > > separate projects and what solr does with the non-lucene bits is not a > > concern > > to lucene pmc (though almost all of us are on both committees of course, but > > hat wearing etc..) > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:43 AM Robert Muir > > <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> I dunno, this seems really crazy to me. Splitting out solr into > > > >>>>>>>> its > > > >>>>>>>> own repository and allowing it to be released independently from > > > >>>>>>>> lucene has already been done, lots of work :) Why not just move > > > >>>>>>>> forwards? > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 8:16 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > > > >>>>>>>> <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:31 pm Robert Muir, <rcm...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I just don't understand the implications of what you are > > suggesting. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The code in question is lucene+solr combined, and the build > > system and > > > >>>>>>>>>> packaging and everything only knows how to do that. So are you > > forking > > > >>>>>>>>>> all the lucene code into the solr repo too? > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Need to split it up and remove the Lucene code from there in > > order to be able to release Solr independently. We can do so later (I'm > > currently > > on travel), if/when needed. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't really understand your need to have a branch_8x. we can > > nuke > > > >>>>>>>>>> it, and you can do any of this from a branch_8_11 some other > > day, no? > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> I guess we can, just don't know the divergence. Just to be on > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > safer side, don't want to lose access to the branch_8x over a weekend > > before I > > or persons more knowledgeable (on the differences between the branches) > > than I get a chance to review the situation. Hence, I just copied the branch > > there for the moment. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:57 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > > > >>>>>>>>>> <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I never expressed any intention of doing so. Besides, is it > > > >>>>>>>>>>> even > > possible (ASF policies wise)? > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> This is a weekend, and I feel bad holding up the 9.0 release > > (since this is a blocker). Solr PMC can decide later on Solr's releases, > > and hence > > I'm going to copy this branch_8x over to Solr repo's "lucene-solr/branch_8x" > > branch. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:14 PM Robert Muir > > <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the solr PMC should issue Lucene 8.12 either. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:42 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds good, Rob. Should I copy over the branch_8x to the > > solr repo until we have further clarity on the course of action to be taken > > with > > Solr releases? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 6:10 pm Robert Muir, > > <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it isn't crazy. I am trying to ensure the backwards > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility that we have is on solid, sustainable footing > > before we > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release a new version promising double the back compat. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:37 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Solr doesn't have backward compatability tests, only > > Lucene has. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's why I proposed leaving the door open for a Solr > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8.12 > > release based on already released 8.11 Lucene and not releasing any further > > 8.x > > minor version release of Lucene. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, if that's problematic to do on branch_8x of > > lucene-solr, then we can do so in the solr repo. If some urgent action to > > nuke > > the branch is to be taken, please give some time to explore alternatives > > that > > affect Solr's developement. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holding up Lucene 9.0 release for removal of branch_8x is > > lunacy, not the continued existence of this branch in the shared repo, > > since a > > future course of action should be deliberated upon before nuking the branch. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 5:34 pm Uwe Schindler, > > <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I fully agree with Robert here. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I originally sent the question about branch_8x because of > > this. Once we released Lucene 9.0 wen can't release 8.12, because the index > > file > > format will be brand marked as originating from 8.12 then, which 9.0 will > > refuse to read. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can only release 8.11.x which is not allowed to have > > index format changes and minor version numbers are not persisted. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So -1 to release a 8.12 an time in future. If you still > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want > > one, hold 9.0 release and add precautions for this. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Imho. Let's stop releasing 8.12 or later for Lucene/Solr > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > > just add Bugfixes. This also applies to Solr. Later this is decoupled, so > > Solr > > 9.1234 may use Lucene 10.4711. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As said before: let's close branch 8.x and add protection > > to it in GitHub. Anybox may merge Bugfixes directly from Solr or Lucene > > main I > > to branch_8_11. I see no problem. Just no index changes! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Uwe > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 21. November 2021 11:51:34 UTC schrieb Robert > > Muir <rcm...@gmail.com>: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I gave my technical justification: our backwards > > compatibility testing > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back > > compat with > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions coming in the future. This is lunacy. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the > > voter must provide with the veto a *technical justification* showing why the > > change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, > > etc. ). > > A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight." > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, > > <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should remove this branch. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see if i > > can > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> automate such an email response with a gmail rule. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change > > backwards > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move > > on people. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand > > <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: > > we are not going to do a 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________ > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev- > > unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev- > > h...@lucene.apache.org > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________ > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev- > > unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev- > > h...@lucene.apache.org > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Uwe Schindler > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.thetaphi.de > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > > >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>> Adrien > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> -- > > > >>>>> Uwe Schindler > > > >>>>> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen > > > >>>>> https://www.thetaphi.de > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > > > >>> http://www.the111shift.com (play) > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Atri > > > > Apache Concerted > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > > > > -- > > Adrien > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
