Thank you, Anshum and Nobel, for your progress on SOLR-8326

I have a couple questions to tide me over until 5.4 (hoping to test 
security.json a bit further while I wait).

Given that the seven steps (tar xvzf solr-5.3.1.tgz; tar xvzf 
zookeeper-3.4.6.tar.gz; zkServer.sh start zoo_sample.cfg; zkcli.sh -zkhost 
localhost:2181 -cmd putfile /security.json ~/security.json; solr start -e cloud 
-z localhost:2181; solr stop -p 7574 & solr start -c -p 7574 -s 
"example/cloud/node2/solr" -z localhost:2181) demonstrate the problem, are 
there a similar set of steps by which one can load _some_ minimal security.json 
and still be able to stop & successfully restart one node of the cluster? (I am 
wondering what steps were used in the original testing of 5.3.1)

Also, has it been verified that the SOLR-8326 patch resolves the ADDREPLICA bug 
in addition to the 
shutdown-&-restart-one-node-while-keeping-another-node-running bug?

Also, would it make sense for me to download solr-5.3.1-src.tgz and (in a test 
environment) make the changes described in the latest attachment to SOLR-8326? 
Or would it be more advisable just to wait for 5.4? I don't know what may be 
involved in compiling a new solr.war from the source code.

Thanks again

-----Original Message-----
From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 1:25 PM
To: solr-user <solr-user@lucene.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Re:Re: Implementing security.json is breaking ADDREPLICA

bq: I don't suppose there is an ETA for 5.4?

Actually, 5.4 is probably in the works within the next month. I'm not
the one cutting the
release, but there's some rumors that a label will be cut this week,
then the "usual"
process is a week or two (sometimes more if bugs are flushed out) before the
official release.

Call it the first of the year for safety's sake, but that's a guess.

Best,
Erick

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Oakley, Craig (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]
<craig.oak...@nih.gov> wrote:
> Thanks for the reply,
>
> I don't suppose there is an ETA for 5.4?
>
>
> Thanks again
>
> -----Original Message-----
...

Reply via email to