Re: Release 9.7.1

Thanks for the heads up, James! I haven't been able to reproduce TestLBHttp2SolrClient, unfortunately. Looking at the historical failure rates it has been flaky for some time - which assuages my concerns about a "new bug" a good bit. IMO it needn't be resolved prior to 9.7.1. (Though I intend to k

Re: Release 9.7.1

Jason, you may want to know that PR #2828 (to be merged to main soon) will rename TestLBHttp2SolrClient to LBHttp2SolrClientIntegrationTest. I did not look into why it fails sometimes, but I have a feeling it is because it relies on Thread.sleep and clock time. On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 1:46 PM Jason

Re: Release 9.7.1

Thanks for starting to look at the test failures, Jason. I'll wait until we are confident about the state of affairs before cutting the RC. Hopefully we can move forward on Monday. On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 11:45 AM Jason Gerlowski wrote: > Related to the release - I'm noticing a lot more test fai

Re: Release 9.7.1

Related to the release - I'm noticing a lot more test failures than usual on fucit. A lot of this is noise on 'main' due to the recent JDK21 upgrade, and Curator introduction. But even filtering out 'main', there is a higher than usual failure rate for 9.x and branch_9_7. I'm going to start digg

Re: Release 9.7.1

Good perspective Anshum. I may have been infected with 10x fever! Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 30, 2024, at 12:43 PM, Anshum Gupta wrote: > I agree, let's do both 9.7.1 and 9.8 as that is what makes sense for users. > > We also assumed 8.11.1 would be the last 8x release but it didn't rea

Re: Release 9.7.1

Agreed, Jan. Also, I don't like talk of 9.whatever being the last minor version. Granted, few of us may be motivated to do additional backports from main to 10x and an additional 9x but if some of us became motivated to do so, all it takes is 3 +1 votes to officiate a release of whatever version.

Re: Release 9.7.1

I agree, let's do both 9.7.1 and 9.8 as that is what makes sense for users. We also assumed 8.11.1 would be the last 8x release but it didn't really end up that way. Let's support 9x until it makes sense for us and the user community to do so. I personally see more 9x releases in the future. On W

Re: Release 9.7.1

+1 to an 9.7.1 stability / bugfix release. And we should continue minor 9.x releases every couple months until we are ready to do a quality 10.0 release with JDK, Jetty, SolrJ etc sorted out. We of course hope that is soonish, but let's not decide which is the lastest 9.x version until we are a

Re: Release 9.7.1

Why not both? I think a 9.8 would be awesome to get some additional deprecations and minor features out. But we've stacked up a number of pretty serious 9.7 bugs that we should try to get fixed for users independent of that: SOLR-17515, SOLR-17464, SOLR-17457 (which prevents our starting on Windo

Re: Release 9.7.1

I'm targeting 9.8 for SOLR-17151 if the rest of my life would ever stop needing immediate attention. On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 12:16 PM David Eric Pugh wrote: > Would it make more sense to do a 9.8? There are lots of CLI deprecation > in 9.8 that would be nice to see the light of day before 10.

Re: Release 9.7.1

Would it make more sense to do a 9.8?   There are lots of CLI deprecation in 9.8 that would be nice to see the light of day before 10.0 is shipped!  On Tuesday, October 29, 2024 at 09:58:18 AM EDT, Jan Høydahl wrote: Thanks Anshum. We have 11 bugs fixed for 9.8

Re: Release 9.7.1

Thanks Anshum. We have 11 bugs fixed for 9.8 so far, may consider backporting some of them in 9.7.1. Jan > 28. okt. 2024 kl. 18:57 skrev Anshum