Hi Jason,

fyi, we have an open PR <https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/2176>for  the
Lucene upgrade (v9.9.2) waiting for review.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 6:21 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowsk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm working on the Lucene upgrade now.  That will still need some time in
> review (and maybe a day to let tests bake?), so I'm fine if you backport
> SOLR-17068 in that timeframe.  But let's draw the line once the Lucene
> 9.9.2 upgrade is in, unless something else urgent comes up.  I'll target
> Wednesday or Thursday for the Solr RC1.
>
> Jason
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 4:15 PM Eric Pugh <ep...@opensourceconnections.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Jason, I tackled SOLR-17068 (the one you reminded me of) and I’d love to
> > get it into 9.5 since right now we have a terrible mish mash of bin/solr
> > post and bin/post in the ref guide and docs.
> >
> > Could someone review https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/2227 and if it
> > looks good could we sneak it into 9.5?
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 26, 2024, at 6:29 PM, Eric Pugh <
> ep...@opensourceconnections.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Backport to branch_9_5 is done.
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Jan 26, 2024, at 1:11 PM, Jason Gerlowski <gerlowsk...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Go ahead and backport on your own!  I'm still waiting on Lucene 9.9.2,
> > so
> > >> there shouldn't be any branch-contention on my end.
> > >>
> > >> Relatedly, Lucene has their RC1 out there and things look good a day
> or
> > two
> > >> into their VOTE, so with any luck we'll be able to get a Solr 9.5 RC
> > >> together early next week!
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >>
> > >> Jason
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 8:49 AM Eric Pugh <ep...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I am about to merge SOLR-17112, and will backport it to branch_9x.
> > Jason,
> > >>> do you backport it over to the branch_9_5 or do I?
> > >>>
> > >>> ERic
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 2024/01/23 19:08:10 Jason Gerlowski wrote:
> > >>>>> It was hoped SOLR-17112 would make 9.4.1 but it didn't as no PR was
> > >>>> proposed.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> SOLR-17120 [is] nominated for inclusion in the 9.5.0 release
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Those both sound quick and reasonable; they've got a +1 from me to
> go
> > >>> into
> > >>>> 9.5 (assuming the contributor decides to continue with SOLR-17112).
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Considering Lucene 9.9.2 is being planned, I think it would be
> better
> > >>> to
> > >>>>> upgrade Solr to the to-be-released version so users have to deal
> with
> > >>>>> fewer upgrade cycles.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yeah, that might be best; I hadn't realized we weren't already on
> the
> > >>>> latest Lucene 9.x.  I've created SOLR-17128 to track our Lucene
> > upgrade
> > >>>> once 9.9.2 is available.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Obviously this is a longer delay than some of the tickets above, and
> > will
> > >>>> mean we won't be cutting a Solr RC this week.  We can pick a new
> date
> > for
> > >>>> the initial Solr 9.5 RC once Lucene 9.9.2 is available.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jason
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 1:37 PM Anshum Gupta <
> ans...@anshumgupta.net>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Considering Lucene 9.9.2 is being planned, I think it would be
> better
> > >>> to
> > >>>>> upgrade Solr to the to-be-released version so users have to deal
> with
> > >>> fewer
> > >>>>> upgrade cycles.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> To highlight, there are about 90 odd changes in the Lucene 9.9.x
> > line.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -Anshum
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 8:47 AM David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> FYI It was hoped SOLR-17112
> > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17112 "bin/solr script
> > >>>>>> doesn't do ps properly on some systems" would make 9.4.1 but it
> > >>> didn't
> > >>>>>> as no PR was proposed.  There still isn't one but a contributor is
> > >>>>>> thinking about it.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:30 AM Christine Poerschke (BLOOMBERG/
> > >>>>>> LONDON) <cpoersc...@bloomberg.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Just to cross-reference things further (Jason is already aware)
> --
> > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17120 and
> > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/2214 are nominated for
> > >>> inclusion in
> > >>>>>> the 9.5 release, and as always additional reviews and inputs are
> > >>> welcome.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>> Christine
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> From: dev@solr.apache.org At: 01/22/24 17:30:35 UTCTo:
> > >>>>>> dev@solr.apache.org
> > >>>>>>> Subject: New branch and feature freeze for Solr 9.5.0
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> NOTICE:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Branch branch_9_5 has been cut and versions updated to 9.6 on the
> > >>>>> stable
> > >>>>>>> branch.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Please observe the normal rules:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> * No new features may be committed to the branch.
> > >>>>>>> * Documentation patches, build patches and serious bug fixes may
> be
> > >>>>>>>  committed to the branch. However, you should submit all patches
> > >>> you
> > >>>>>>>  want to commit to Jira first to give others the chance to review
> > >>>>>>>  and possibly vote against the patch. Keep in mind that it is our
> > >>>>>>>  main intention to keep the branch as stable as possible.
> > >>>>>>> * All patches that are intended for the branch should first be
> > >>>>> committed
> > >>>>>>>  to the unstable branch, merged into the stable branch, and then
> > >>> into
> > >>>>>>>  the current release branch.
> > >>>>>>> * Normal unstable and stable branch development may continue as
> > >>> usual.
> > >>>>>>>  However, if you plan to commit a big change to the unstable
> > >>> branch
> > >>>>>>>  while the branch feature freeze is in effect, think twice: can't
> > >>> the
> > >>>>>>>  addition wait a couple more days? Merges of bug fixes into the
> > >>> branch
> > >>>>>>>  may become more difficult.
> > >>>>>>> * Only Jira issues with Fix version 9.5 and priority "Blocker"
> will
> > >>>>> delay
> > >>>>>>>  a release candidate build.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> The feature-freeze for the 9.5 release will go till the end of
> this
> > >>>>> week
> > >>>>>> -
> > >>>>>>> I'll aim to create our first RC on Thursday, January 25th.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Jason
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
> > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Anshum Gupta
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > > _______________________
> > > Eric Pugh | Founder & CEO | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467
> |
> > http://www.opensourceconnections.com <
> > http://www.opensourceconnections.com/> | My Free/Busy <
> > http://tinyurl.com/eric-cal>
> > > Co-Author: Apache Solr Enterprise Search Server, 3rd Ed <
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/apache-solr-enterprise-search-server-third-edition-raw
> >
> >
> > > This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to
> be
> > Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless of
> > whether attachments are marked as such.
> > >
> >
> > _______________________
> > Eric Pugh | Founder & CEO | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 |
> > http://www.opensourceconnections.com <
> > http://www.opensourceconnections.com/> | My Free/Busy <
> > http://tinyurl.com/eric-cal>
> > Co-Author: Apache Solr Enterprise Search Server, 3rd Ed <
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/apache-solr-enterprise-search-server-third-edition-raw
> >
> >
> > This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered to be
> > Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless of
> > whether attachments are marked as such.
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to