Re: CLI: bin/solr bin/post bin/postlogs -- what's happening

If "B" were to be done, there would similarly need to be a Windows redirect script (a one or two line thing) following suit with the Unix side. I'm not disagreeing with having the internal plumbing redirection that has already occurred -- would not change in "B". Any way -- fine. Not a big deal.

Re: CLI: bin/solr bin/post bin/postlogs -- what's happening

For "post" specifically, I think option (A) is better from both a developer and a user-interface perspective. On the development side, "bin/solr" integration gets us a lot: it's easy to hook new tools/subcommands into bin/solr, the logic can live in Java, support for various features (e.g. basic-a

Re: CLI: bin/solr bin/post bin/postlogs -- what's happening

Thanks David for weighing in. A big part of pushing the bin/post and bin/postlogs into bin/solr as subcommands is that then the sub command lives in Java land, and we just “magically” picked up Windows support. It feels like right now we are in the worst of all worlds.. We have a mix of b

Re: BackupRepository changes

I could imagine making it toggle-able if it serves the index encryption feature. Dunno if that's easy, hard, or impossible. On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:31 AM Jason Gerlowski wrote: > > > Isn't the intent to ensure we don't waste time/space creating a > > useless backup of something that is, I sup

CLI: bin/solr bin/post bin/postlogs -- what's happening

I'm writing this to get input on where we're going in the CLI domain with respect to organizational choices of our commands. Looking on 9x, I see bin/solr, bin/post, bin/postlogs scripts. Recently, most internal command plumbing has been centralized under bin/solr and thus you can do "bin/solr po

Re: Unreferenced license file detection

Stumbled across the same issue and Kevin pointed me to this thread, thanks! https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17142 created for further looking into. From: dev@solr.apache.org At: 12/08/23 04:11:15 UTCTo: dev@solr.apache.org Subject: Re: Unreferenced license file detection Thanks Kevi

Re: New branch and feature freeze for Solr 9.5.0

Thanks! https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-17142 created for it, not a blocker for 9.5 I think. From: dev@solr.apache.org At: 01/30/24 18:28:23 UTCTo: dev@solr.apache.org Subject: Re: New branch and feature freeze for Solr 9.5.0 Christine - David brought this up a few months ago - https

Re: New branch and feature freeze for Solr 9.5.0

Christine - David brought this up a few months ago - https://lists.apache.org/thread/hlh1bmtgnmp55q8knhjtltf8t57pbl5q Kevin Risden On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:07 PM Christine Poerschke (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) < cpoersc...@bloomberg.net> wrote: > Unrelated to baking times, I stumbled across a "unrefer

Re: New branch and feature freeze for Solr 9.5.0

Unrelated to baking times, I stumbled across a "unreferenced files under license folder" mystery: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/2178#issuecomment-1917513343 Could someone try to reproduce the "running clean once and then precommit twice" sequence? Thanks, Christine From: dev@solr.apache

Re: [dev help wanted] /admin/segments handler: expose the term count

Submitted PR: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/2233 Open to further discussion on the JIRA/PR if more fields need to be added to the handler output. On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 8:03 AM Christine Poerschke (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) < cpoersc...@bloomberg.net> wrote: > Wonderful. Please feel free to dir

Re: BackupRepository changes

> Isn't the intent to ensure we don't waste time/space creating a > useless backup of something that is, I suppose, already corrupted? Space is one benefit, yep. The other reason is to avoid giving users a false sense of security. A user would be very frustrated to find out at restore-time that

Re: BackupRepository changes

> Isn't the intent to ensure we don't waste time/space creating a useless backup of something that is, I suppose, already corrupted? That's right. And I didn't read the code enough; a clear effort has been put here since the last time I read the code, to make all implementations consistent to veri

Re: New branch and feature freeze for Solr 9.5.0

Maybe? Obviously that was my initial plan as I mentioned above. But I was pleasantly surprised to see the number of folks that chimed in with their own test results and +1's on Nazerke's Lucene-upgrade PR. It seemed comparable to the data points we'd get out of a multi-day "bake" in Jenkins. So

Re: New branch and feature freeze for Solr 9.5.0

Should we wait at least 2-3 days for the Lucene 9.9.2 upgrade to bake before we cut a release? On Tue, 30 Jan, 2024, 7:50 pm Jason Gerlowski, wrote: > Yes - I saw that right after my last email. Thanks for all your work on > that Nazerke! I've merged and backported that PR; we're now on Lucene

Re: New branch and feature freeze for Solr 9.5.0

Yes - I saw that right after my last email. Thanks for all your work on that Nazerke! I've merged and backported that PR; we're now on Lucene 9.9.2! As soon as Eric's P #2227 is merged and backported I'll start on our RC! Best, Jason On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 7:33 AM Nazerke S wrote: > Hi Jas

Re: BackupRepository changes

On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 4:02 AM Bruno Roustant wrote: > > I noticed two points that I propose to change in some BackupRepository > implementations and in BackupRepositoryFactory: > > 1- Two implementations (S3BackupRepository, GCSBackupRepository) compute > and verify the checksum of index files b

Re: New branch and feature freeze for Solr 9.5.0

Hi Jason, fyi, we have an open PR for the Lucene upgrade (v9.9.2) waiting for review. On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 6:21 PM Jason Gerlowski wrote: > I'm working on the Lucene upgrade now. That will still need some time in > review (and maybe a day to let te

Re: New branch and feature freeze for Solr 9.5.0

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 Wednesda

BackupRepository changes

I noticed two points that I propose to change in some BackupRepository implementations and in BackupRepositoryFactory: 1- Two implementations (S3BackupRepository, GCSBackupRepository) compute and verify the checksum of index files being copied. Other implementations do not. => I propose to remove