> We are discussing this as if moving to an external framework is going to
be smooth. It's not.
Noble, we won't know before someone has given it a try. My hunch suggests
it won't be smooth, but we can decide on that once we see a concrete
solution that 1) works well for all existing APIs (per core
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 1:31 AM Gus Heck wrote:
> I think the key is to let the roles have full control of the implications
> of having/not having that role. No need for even a strict/loose
> designation. The question of do you have the role is yes/no with no logic
> to guess if the role is impli
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 1:20 AM Houston Putman
wrote:
> This doesn't really address my concern around what happens if all of our
>> existing OVERSEER candidates are down. When at least one of them is up, the
>> overseer will go there, and that is good and expected. But what happens if
>> all of th
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 12:54 AM Mike Drob wrote:
> Noble wrote:
> > We are not modifying the way the "overseer role" works today. We are
> just changing the definition and standardizing the configuration &
> discoverability
> Ishan wrote:
> > As of this SIP, we're not planning to modify the OVERS
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:46 AM Jason Gerlowski
wrote:
> > There are no known issues with the current system
>
> Maybe you're using hyperbole to emphasise a point, but let's steer
> this discussion away from straw-men and caricatures. I mentioned
> specific known issues in a previous reply as a d
argh bad edit... The question of will it come up with the role is
"have_explicit ? use_explicit : use_defaults.
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 3:01 PM Gus Heck wrote:
> I think the key is to let the roles have full control of the implications
> of having/not having that role. No need for even a strict/
I think the key is to let the roles have full control of the implications
of having/not having that role. No need for even a strict/loose
designation. The question of do you have the role is yes/no with no logic
to guess if the role is implied or not, The question of will it come up
with the role
>
> This doesn't really address my concern around what happens if all of our
> existing OVERSEER candidates are down. When at least one of them is up, the
> overseer will go there, and that is good and expected. But what happens if
> all of the overseer eligible nodes are down. Your comment, and th
Noble wrote:
> We are not modifying the way the "overseer role" works today. We are just
changing the definition and standardizing the configuration &
discoverability
Ishan wrote:
> As of this SIP, we're not planning to modify the OVERSEER role (which
currently stands for preferred overseer). We ca
Hello Solr devs,
This is a heads up that the BadApple annotation has been removed from
Lucene 10.x since it wasn't used in Lucene. I know some Solr tests are
using it, so you will need to add it on the Solr side when upgrading
to Lucene 10. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10253.
> There are no known issues with the current system
Maybe you're using hyperbole to emphasise a point, but let's steer
this discussion away from straw-men and caricatures. I mentioned
specific known issues in a previous reply as a direct response to your
question about them. The incomplete suppo
11 matches
Mail list logo
