You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com> on 2017/10/13 20:23:24 UTC

6.6.2 Release

Hi,
In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.

I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants to
do so or has an objection.

Regards,
Ishan


[0] -
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-please-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-exploit-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Shalin Shekhar Mangar <sh...@gmail.com>.

Hi Ishan,

I've backported SOLR-10335 to branch_6_6 so this is ready to go.
Thanks for volunteering for the release. I would have volunteered
after releasing 7.1 but you beat me to it.

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya
<ic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>
> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants to
> do so or has an objection.
>
> Regards,
> Ishan
>
>
> [0] -
> https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-please-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-exploit-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list



-- 
Regards,
Shalin Shekhar Mangar.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org

RE: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.

Hi,

From my experience, I think the problem is more the libc, or the combination of kernel and libc. I had huge problems with the libc and the kernel that was shipped originally with Ubuntu 16.04. A recent update fixed a lot of those issues on Ubuntu. One thing that completely broke was running of 32 bit programs (Java crashed with strange errors as soon as you started it), so you were not even able to compile Lucene with a 32 bit JDK. Maybe they broke something in thread handling.

In addition: Keep in mind, that newer CPU models have different behavior in their guarantees on what is visible in cache/RAM if different cores/cpus when they do concurrent work. In lots of cases, the problem is just missing/wrong synchronization/happens before/… and therefor wrong usage of java memory model in those tests. As the listed tests are also failing from time to time with other CPUs I’d check them and fix their concurrency, I am quite sure that something is fishy on them.

Uwe

-----

Uwe Schindler

Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen

http://www.thetaphi.de <http://www.thetaphi.de/> 

eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de

From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 2:34 AM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: 6.6.2 Release

Hi Gus,

I encountered those failures on Fedora 26. It seems everything is fine on Fedora 25, but there are bunch of failures on Fedora 26. Most of these failures are Solr losing ZK connections and hence timing out.

Initially, I thought these are related to the kernel version, but now I think this is distribution specific. What is a bit baffling to me is that I remember these tests running well with Fedora 26 about a month back (so, maybe some latest update broke it?). I'm looking into what could be the underlying reason.

Interesting that you could reproduce these on Ubuntu 17.04. I'll take a look at that distro version as well. I'm also using the AMD Threadripper 1950X these days, and I see that -Dtests.jvms=24 gives me the best overall times.

Regards,

Ishan

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Gus Heck <gus.heck@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:

@Ishan, re failures.. I'm seeing very common test failures on a Ubuntu 17.04 box that I built very recently, but that is apparently lower version than your success. (4.10.0-37-generic x86_64)... would be interested to know what distro you are using... and what the diff between the versions you used were. Failures were more common with things cranked up to 30 processors (success 1 in 10 times, note: box has a 32 thread AMD processor). Failures are less common with "auto" which yeilds 4 (about 50/50 chance of success), am now working on figuring out how common failures are with it tuned down to 1 thread (but that's very slow).

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Thanks Steve, it was indeed the problem!

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Thanks a lot, Steve! I'll take a look :-)

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Steve Rowe <sarowe@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi Ishan,

(I see you pinged me on #solr-dev IRC, but I was AFK for a while, sorry.)

I think the change I made to buildAndPushRelease.py, which fixed a problem I had with building the 7.0.1 RC that sounds suspiciously like what you’re encountering, might help?  I didn’t commit to branch_6_6, but here’s the branch_7_0 commit: <https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;a=commit;h=8d6c3889>

Here’s the branch_6_6 version:

  result = p.poll()
  if result is not None:
    msg = '    FAILED: %s [see log %s]' % (command, LOG)

Null is returned by poll() to indicate that the process has not terminated.  So what’s AFAICT happening to you is that the process *is* terminating in time, and is returning 0 (for success), which is not Null, which triggers failure.  This is wrong.  My patch switches this code to use wait() instead of poll():

  try:
    result = p.wait(timeout=120)
    if result != 0:
      msg = '    FAILED: %s [see log %s]' % (command, LOG)
      print(msg)
      raise RuntimeError(msg)
  except TimeoutExpired:
    msg = '    FAILED: %s [timed out after 2 minutes; see log %s]' % (command, LOG)

--
Steve
www.lucidworks.com <http://www.lucidworks.com> 

> On Oct 15, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
> Update on the RC: I'm trying to build one for some time now. The latest situation is that all the steps seem to be going well, but still the script fails: https://gist.github.com/chatman/fa307c3e8253d2014d0e7bb381328396
>
> Looking into what could be going wrong. Any help is most welcome.
>
> @Shalin, I remember you mentioned that you found a way to build the artifacts separately and signing them separately. Can you please share how to do so? It will save me a lot of time; currently each of my attempts is building artifacts from scratch.
>
> Thanks,
> Ishan
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> Thanks! I ran precommit and test after the commit and all's well....
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> No problem, I'll pick up your commit. :-)
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> Committed now.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> Michael: Good catch. Have I mentioned lately that Git and I don't get along? Apparently I was in some weird state when I tried to push.
>
> Ishan: Many apologies, but I'll have to push again, is it too late to re-spin?
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> Here are the logs of two failed runs, FYI.
> http://textsearch.io/tests.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
> http://textsearch.io/tests2.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> FYI, I've been struggling to run tests for past 4-5 hours. About 10-15 of them failed on every run; I tried all the branches, variety of different machines (Intel i7 Haswell-E, Ryzen 1700, Threadripper 1950X). My JDK version on all of these are 8u144.
>
> Finally, figured out that all my machines had the latest 4.12.14-300.fc26.x86_64 or 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64 kernels. When I downgraded the kernel to 4.11.6-201.fc25.x86_64, the tests started running as usual. Now, I'll try to build the RC for 6.6.2 on this kernel. Is this a known issue?
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> Done both for 6.6 and 6x
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> Sure Erick, please go ahead.
> I'll start the release later today.
> Thanks,
> Ishan
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> Ishan:
>
> I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing it. Give me a few.
>
> The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt. Currently it's in 7.0.1 and 7.1.
>
> I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and leaving it in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master.
>
> I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear back from you sooner.
>
> Erick
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <tallison@mitre.org <ma...@mitre.org> > wrote:
> Sounds good.  Thank you!
>
>
>
> From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> ]
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org <ma...@lucene.apache.org> 
> Subject: Re: 6.6.2 Release
>
>
>
> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is no. 😊
>
> Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as to mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is not committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it included in a later release, if needed.
>
> +1 to SOLR-11297.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <david.w.smiley@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
> Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
>
> * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the process
>
> * helps users upgrade to later versions
>
> * documentation
>
>
>
> +1 to SOLR-11297
>
>
>
> I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat issue?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
> I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto if the answer is no....
>
>
>
> It's quite a safe fix though.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <tallison@mitre.org <ma...@mitre.org> > wrote:
>
> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is no. 😊
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
> From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> ]
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org <ma...@lucene.apache.org> 
> Subject: 6.6.2 Release
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>
> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants to do so or has an objection.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ishan
>
>
>
> [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-please-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-exploit-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
>
>
>
> --
>
> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
>
> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org <ma...@lucene.apache.org> 
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org <ma...@lucene.apache.org> 

-- 

http://www.the111shift.com

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com>.

Hi Gus,
I encountered those failures on Fedora 26. It seems everything is fine on
Fedora 25, but there are bunch of failures on Fedora 26. Most of these
failures are Solr losing ZK connections and hence timing out.
Initially, I thought these are related to the kernel version, but now I
think this is distribution specific. What is a bit baffling to me is that I
remember these tests running well with Fedora 26 about a month back (so,
maybe some latest update broke it?). I'm looking into what could be the
underlying reason.

Interesting that you could reproduce these on Ubuntu 17.04. I'll take a
look at that distro version as well. I'm also using the AMD Threadripper
1950X these days, and I see that -Dtests.jvms=24 gives me the best overall
times.
Regards,
Ishan


On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Gus Heck <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> @Ishan, re failures.. I'm seeing very common test failures on a Ubuntu
> 17.04 box that I built very recently, but that is apparently lower version
> than your success. (4.10.0-37-generic x86_64)... would be interested to
> know what distro you are using... and what the diff between the versions
> you used were. Failures were more common with things cranked up to 30
> processors (success 1 in 10 times, note: box has a 32 thread AMD
> processor). Failures are less common with "auto" which yeilds 4 (about
> 50/50 chance of success), am now working on figuring out how common
> failures are with it tuned down to 1 thread (but that's very slow).
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Steve, it was indeed the problem!
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks a lot, Steve! I'll take a look :-)
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ishan,
>>>>
>>>> (I see you pinged me on #solr-dev IRC, but I was AFK for a while,
>>>> sorry.)
>>>>
>>>> I think the change I made to buildAndPushRelease.py, which fixed a
>>>> problem I had with building the 7.0.1 RC that sounds suspiciously like what
>>>> you’re encountering, might help?  I didn’t commit to branch_6_6, but here’s
>>>> the branch_7_0 commit: <https://git1-us-west.apache.o
>>>> rg/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;a=commit;h=8d6c3889>
>>>>
>>>> Here’s the branch_6_6 version:
>>>>
>>>>   result = p.poll()
>>>>   if result is not None:
>>>>     msg = '    FAILED: %s [see log %s]' % (command, LOG)
>>>>
>>>> Null is returned by poll() to indicate that the process has not
>>>> terminated.  So what’s AFAICT happening to you is that the process *is*
>>>> terminating in time, and is returning 0 (for success), which is not Null,
>>>> which triggers failure.  This is wrong.  My patch switches this code to use
>>>> wait() instead of poll():
>>>>
>>>>   try:
>>>>     result = p.wait(timeout=120)
>>>>     if result != 0:
>>>>       msg = '    FAILED: %s [see log %s]' % (command, LOG)
>>>>       print(msg)
>>>>       raise RuntimeError(msg)
>>>>   except TimeoutExpired:
>>>>     msg = '    FAILED: %s [timed out after 2 minutes; see log %s]' %
>>>> (command, LOG)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Steve
>>>> www.lucidworks.com
>>>>
>>>> > On Oct 15, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Update on the RC: I'm trying to build one for some time now. The
>>>> latest situation is that all the steps seem to be going well, but still the
>>>> script fails: https://gist.github.com/chatma
>>>> n/fa307c3e8253d2014d0e7bb381328396
>>>> >
>>>> > Looking into what could be going wrong. Any help is most welcome.
>>>> >
>>>> > @Shalin, I remember you mentioned that you found a way to build the
>>>> artifacts separately and signing them separately. Can you please share how
>>>> to do so? It will save me a lot of time; currently each of my attempts is
>>>> building artifacts from scratch.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> > Ishan
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Erick Erickson <
>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Thanks! I ran precommit and test after the commit and all's well....
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > No problem, I'll pick up your commit. :-)
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Erick Erickson <
>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Committed now.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Erick Erickson <
>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Michael: Good catch. Have I mentioned lately that Git and I don't get
>>>> along? Apparently I was in some weird state when I tried to push.
>>>> >
>>>> > Ishan: Many apologies, but I'll have to push again, is it too late to
>>>> re-spin?
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Here are the logs of two failed runs, FYI.
>>>> > http://textsearch.io/tests.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
>>>> > http://textsearch.io/tests2.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > FYI, I've been struggling to run tests for past 4-5 hours. About
>>>> 10-15 of them failed on every run; I tried all the branches, variety of
>>>> different machines (Intel i7 Haswell-E, Ryzen 1700, Threadripper 1950X). My
>>>> JDK version on all of these are 8u144.
>>>> >
>>>> > Finally, figured out that all my machines had the latest
>>>> 4.12.14-300.fc26.x86_64 or 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64 kernels. When I
>>>> downgraded the kernel to 4.11.6-201.fc25.x86_64, the tests started running
>>>> as usual. Now, I'll try to build the RC for 6.6.2 on this kernel. Is this a
>>>> known issue?
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Erick Erickson <
>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Done both for 6.6 and 6x
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Sure Erick, please go ahead.
>>>> > I'll start the release later today.
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> > Ishan
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Erick Erickson <
>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Ishan:
>>>> >
>>>> > I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing it.
>>>> Give me a few.
>>>> >
>>>> > The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt. Currently
>>>> it's in 7.0.1 and 7.1.
>>>> >
>>>> > I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and
>>>> leaving it in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear back
>>>> from you sooner.
>>>> >
>>>> > Erick
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>>>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>> > Sounds good.  Thank you!
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>>> > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
>>>> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>> > Subject: Re: 6.6.2 Release
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer
>>>> is no. 😊
>>>> >
>>>> > Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as
>>>> to mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is
>>>> not committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it
>>>> included in a later release, if needed.
>>>> >
>>>> > +1 to SOLR-11297.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <
>>>> david.w.smiley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
>>>> >
>>>> > * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the
>>>> process
>>>> >
>>>> > * helps users upgrade to later versions
>>>> >
>>>> > * documentation
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > +1 to SOLR-11297
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat
>>>> issue?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <
>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto
>>>> if the answer is no....
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > It's quite a safe fix though.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>>>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is
>>>> no. 😊
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Thank you!
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>>> > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
>>>> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>> > Subject: 6.6.2 Release
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Hi,
>>>> >
>>>> > In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else
>>>> wants to do so or has an objection.
>>>> >
>>>> > Regards,
>>>> >
>>>> > Ishan
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-ple
>>>> ase-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-exploit
>>>> -has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> >
>>>> > Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
>>>> >
>>>> > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
>>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> http://www.the111shift.com
>

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Gus Heck <gu...@gmail.com>.

@Ishan, re failures.. I'm seeing very common test failures on a Ubuntu
17.04 box that I built very recently, but that is apparently lower version
than your success. (4.10.0-37-generic x86_64)... would be interested to
know what distro you are using... and what the diff between the versions
you used were. Failures were more common with things cranked up to 30
processors (success 1 in 10 times, note: box has a 32 thread AMD
processor). Failures are less common with "auto" which yeilds 4 (about
50/50 chance of success), am now working on figuring out how common
failures are with it tuned down to 1 thread (but that's very slow).

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Steve, it was indeed the problem!
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks a lot, Steve! I'll take a look :-)
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ishan,
>>>
>>> (I see you pinged me on #solr-dev IRC, but I was AFK for a while, sorry.)
>>>
>>> I think the change I made to buildAndPushRelease.py, which fixed a
>>> problem I had with building the 7.0.1 RC that sounds suspiciously like what
>>> you’re encountering, might help?  I didn’t commit to branch_6_6, but here’s
>>> the branch_7_0 commit: <https://git1-us-west.apache.o
>>> rg/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;a=commit;h=8d6c3889>
>>>
>>> Here’s the branch_6_6 version:
>>>
>>>   result = p.poll()
>>>   if result is not None:
>>>     msg = '    FAILED: %s [see log %s]' % (command, LOG)
>>>
>>> Null is returned by poll() to indicate that the process has not
>>> terminated.  So what’s AFAICT happening to you is that the process *is*
>>> terminating in time, and is returning 0 (for success), which is not Null,
>>> which triggers failure.  This is wrong.  My patch switches this code to use
>>> wait() instead of poll():
>>>
>>>   try:
>>>     result = p.wait(timeout=120)
>>>     if result != 0:
>>>       msg = '    FAILED: %s [see log %s]' % (command, LOG)
>>>       print(msg)
>>>       raise RuntimeError(msg)
>>>   except TimeoutExpired:
>>>     msg = '    FAILED: %s [timed out after 2 minutes; see log %s]' %
>>> (command, LOG)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Steve
>>> www.lucidworks.com
>>>
>>> > On Oct 15, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Update on the RC: I'm trying to build one for some time now. The
>>> latest situation is that all the steps seem to be going well, but still the
>>> script fails: https://gist.github.com/chatma
>>> n/fa307c3e8253d2014d0e7bb381328396
>>> >
>>> > Looking into what could be going wrong. Any help is most welcome.
>>> >
>>> > @Shalin, I remember you mentioned that you found a way to build the
>>> artifacts separately and signing them separately. Can you please share how
>>> to do so? It will save me a lot of time; currently each of my attempts is
>>> building artifacts from scratch.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Ishan
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Erick Erickson <
>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Thanks! I ran precommit and test after the commit and all's well....
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > No problem, I'll pick up your commit. :-)
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Erick Erickson <
>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Committed now.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Erick Erickson <
>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Michael: Good catch. Have I mentioned lately that Git and I don't get
>>> along? Apparently I was in some weird state when I tried to push.
>>> >
>>> > Ishan: Many apologies, but I'll have to push again, is it too late to
>>> re-spin?
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Here are the logs of two failed runs, FYI.
>>> > http://textsearch.io/tests.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
>>> > http://textsearch.io/tests2.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > FYI, I've been struggling to run tests for past 4-5 hours. About 10-15
>>> of them failed on every run; I tried all the branches, variety of different
>>> machines (Intel i7 Haswell-E, Ryzen 1700, Threadripper 1950X). My JDK
>>> version on all of these are 8u144.
>>> >
>>> > Finally, figured out that all my machines had the latest
>>> 4.12.14-300.fc26.x86_64 or 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64 kernels. When I
>>> downgraded the kernel to 4.11.6-201.fc25.x86_64, the tests started running
>>> as usual. Now, I'll try to build the RC for 6.6.2 on this kernel. Is this a
>>> known issue?
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Erick Erickson <
>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Done both for 6.6 and 6x
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Sure Erick, please go ahead.
>>> > I'll start the release later today.
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Ishan
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Erick Erickson <
>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Ishan:
>>> >
>>> > I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing it.
>>> Give me a few.
>>> >
>>> > The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt. Currently
>>> it's in 7.0.1 and 7.1.
>>> >
>>> > I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and
>>> leaving it in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master.
>>> >
>>> > I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear back
>>> from you sooner.
>>> >
>>> > Erick
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>>> > Sounds good.  Thank you!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>> > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
>>> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> > Subject: Re: 6.6.2 Release
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer
>>> is no. 😊
>>> >
>>> > Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as
>>> to mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is
>>> not committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it
>>> included in a later release, if needed.
>>> >
>>> > +1 to SOLR-11297.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <
>>> david.w.smiley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
>>> >
>>> > * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the
>>> process
>>> >
>>> > * helps users upgrade to later versions
>>> >
>>> > * documentation
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > +1 to SOLR-11297
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat
>>> issue?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <
>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto
>>> if the answer is no....
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > It's quite a safe fix though.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is
>>> no. 😊
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thank you!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>> > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
>>> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> > Subject: 6.6.2 Release
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>>> >
>>> > I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else
>>> wants to do so or has an objection.
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> >
>>> > Ishan
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-ple
>>> ase-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-explo
>>> it-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
>>> >
>>> > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
http://www.the111shift.com

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com>.

Thanks Steve, it was indeed the problem!

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks a lot, Steve! I'll take a look :-)
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ishan,
>>
>> (I see you pinged me on #solr-dev IRC, but I was AFK for a while, sorry.)
>>
>> I think the change I made to buildAndPushRelease.py, which fixed a
>> problem I had with building the 7.0.1 RC that sounds suspiciously like what
>> you’re encountering, might help?  I didn’t commit to branch_6_6, but here’s
>> the branch_7_0 commit: <https://git1-us-west.apache.o
>> rg/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;a=commit;h=8d6c3889>
>>
>> Here’s the branch_6_6 version:
>>
>>   result = p.poll()
>>   if result is not None:
>>     msg = '    FAILED: %s [see log %s]' % (command, LOG)
>>
>> Null is returned by poll() to indicate that the process has not
>> terminated.  So what’s AFAICT happening to you is that the process *is*
>> terminating in time, and is returning 0 (for success), which is not Null,
>> which triggers failure.  This is wrong.  My patch switches this code to use
>> wait() instead of poll():
>>
>>   try:
>>     result = p.wait(timeout=120)
>>     if result != 0:
>>       msg = '    FAILED: %s [see log %s]' % (command, LOG)
>>       print(msg)
>>       raise RuntimeError(msg)
>>   except TimeoutExpired:
>>     msg = '    FAILED: %s [timed out after 2 minutes; see log %s]' %
>> (command, LOG)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steve
>> www.lucidworks.com
>>
>> > On Oct 15, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Update on the RC: I'm trying to build one for some time now. The latest
>> situation is that all the steps seem to be going well, but still the script
>> fails: https://gist.github.com/chatman/fa307c3e8253d2014d0e7bb381328396
>> >
>> > Looking into what could be going wrong. Any help is most welcome.
>> >
>> > @Shalin, I remember you mentioned that you found a way to build the
>> artifacts separately and signing them separately. Can you please share how
>> to do so? It will save me a lot of time; currently each of my attempts is
>> building artifacts from scratch.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Ishan
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Erick Erickson <
>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Thanks! I ran precommit and test after the commit and all's well....
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > No problem, I'll pick up your commit. :-)
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Erick Erickson <
>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Committed now.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Erick Erickson <
>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Michael: Good catch. Have I mentioned lately that Git and I don't get
>> along? Apparently I was in some weird state when I tried to push.
>> >
>> > Ishan: Many apologies, but I'll have to push again, is it too late to
>> re-spin?
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Here are the logs of two failed runs, FYI.
>> > http://textsearch.io/tests.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
>> > http://textsearch.io/tests2.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > FYI, I've been struggling to run tests for past 4-5 hours. About 10-15
>> of them failed on every run; I tried all the branches, variety of different
>> machines (Intel i7 Haswell-E, Ryzen 1700, Threadripper 1950X). My JDK
>> version on all of these are 8u144.
>> >
>> > Finally, figured out that all my machines had the latest
>> 4.12.14-300.fc26.x86_64 or 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64 kernels. When I
>> downgraded the kernel to 4.11.6-201.fc25.x86_64, the tests started running
>> as usual. Now, I'll try to build the RC for 6.6.2 on this kernel. Is this a
>> known issue?
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Erick Erickson <
>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Done both for 6.6 and 6x
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Sure Erick, please go ahead.
>> > I'll start the release later today.
>> > Thanks,
>> > Ishan
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Erick Erickson <
>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Ishan:
>> >
>> > I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing it.
>> Give me a few.
>> >
>> > The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt. Currently
>> it's in 7.0.1 and 7.1.
>> >
>> > I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and
>> leaving it in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master.
>> >
>> > I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear back
>> from you sooner.
>> >
>> > Erick
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>> > Sounds good.  Thank you!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
>> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: 6.6.2 Release
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is
>> no. 😊
>> >
>> > Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as to
>> mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is not
>> committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it
>> included in a later release, if needed.
>> >
>> > +1 to SOLR-11297.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
>> >
>> > * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the
>> process
>> >
>> > * helps users upgrade to later versions
>> >
>> > * documentation
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > +1 to SOLR-11297
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat
>> issue?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto if
>> the answer is no....
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > It's quite a safe fix though.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is
>> no. 😊
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thank you!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
>> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > Subject: 6.6.2 Release
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>> >
>> > I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants
>> to do so or has an objection.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Ishan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-
>> please-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-
>> exploit-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
>> >
>> > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com>.

Thanks a lot, Steve! I'll take a look :-)

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ishan,
>
> (I see you pinged me on #solr-dev IRC, but I was AFK for a while, sorry.)
>
> I think the change I made to buildAndPushRelease.py, which fixed a problem
> I had with building the 7.0.1 RC that sounds suspiciously like what you’re
> encountering, might help?  I didn’t commit to branch_6_6, but here’s the
> branch_7_0 commit: <https://git1-us-west.apache.
> org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;a=commit;h=8d6c3889>
>
> Here’s the branch_6_6 version:
>
>   result = p.poll()
>   if result is not None:
>     msg = '    FAILED: %s [see log %s]' % (command, LOG)
>
> Null is returned by poll() to indicate that the process has not
> terminated.  So what’s AFAICT happening to you is that the process *is*
> terminating in time, and is returning 0 (for success), which is not Null,
> which triggers failure.  This is wrong.  My patch switches this code to use
> wait() instead of poll():
>
>   try:
>     result = p.wait(timeout=120)
>     if result != 0:
>       msg = '    FAILED: %s [see log %s]' % (command, LOG)
>       print(msg)
>       raise RuntimeError(msg)
>   except TimeoutExpired:
>     msg = '    FAILED: %s [timed out after 2 minutes; see log %s]' %
> (command, LOG)
>
>
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com
>
> > On Oct 15, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Update on the RC: I'm trying to build one for some time now. The latest
> situation is that all the steps seem to be going well, but still the script
> fails: https://gist.github.com/chatman/fa307c3e8253d2014d0e7bb381328396
> >
> > Looking into what could be going wrong. Any help is most welcome.
> >
> > @Shalin, I remember you mentioned that you found a way to build the
> artifacts separately and signing them separately. Can you please share how
> to do so? It will save me a lot of time; currently each of my attempts is
> building artifacts from scratch.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ishan
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Erick Erickson <
> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks! I ran precommit and test after the commit and all's well....
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No problem, I'll pick up your commit. :-)
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Committed now.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Michael: Good catch. Have I mentioned lately that Git and I don't get
> along? Apparently I was in some weird state when I tried to push.
> >
> > Ishan: Many apologies, but I'll have to push again, is it too late to
> re-spin?
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here are the logs of two failed runs, FYI.
> > http://textsearch.io/tests.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
> > http://textsearch.io/tests2.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> > FYI, I've been struggling to run tests for past 4-5 hours. About 10-15
> of them failed on every run; I tried all the branches, variety of different
> machines (Intel i7 Haswell-E, Ryzen 1700, Threadripper 1950X). My JDK
> version on all of these are 8u144.
> >
> > Finally, figured out that all my machines had the latest
> 4.12.14-300.fc26.x86_64 or 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64 kernels. When I
> downgraded the kernel to 4.11.6-201.fc25.x86_64, the tests started running
> as usual. Now, I'll try to build the RC for 6.6.2 on this kernel. Is this a
> known issue?
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Done both for 6.6 and 6x
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sure Erick, please go ahead.
> > I'll start the release later today.
> > Thanks,
> > Ishan
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Ishan:
> >
> > I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing it.
> Give me a few.
> >
> > The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt. Currently
> it's in 7.0.1 and 7.1.
> >
> > I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and
> leaving it in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master.
> >
> > I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear back
> from you sooner.
> >
> > Erick
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <ta...@mitre.org>
> wrote:
> > Sounds good.  Thank you!
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: 6.6.2 Release
> >
> >
> >
> > > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is
> no. 😊
> >
> > Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as to
> mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is not
> committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it
> included in a later release, if needed.
> >
> > +1 to SOLR-11297.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
> >
> > * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the
> process
> >
> > * helps users upgrade to later versions
> >
> > * documentation
> >
> >
> >
> > +1 to SOLR-11297
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat
> issue?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto if
> the answer is no....
> >
> >
> >
> > It's quite a safe fix though.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <ta...@mitre.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is
> no. 😊
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: 6.6.2 Release
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
> >
> > I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants
> to do so or has an objection.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ishan
> >
> >
> >
> > [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-
> 2017-please-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-
> zero-day-exploit-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
> >
> > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: http://www.
> solrenterprisesearchserver.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Steve Rowe <sa...@gmail.com>.

Hi Ishan,

(I see you pinged me on #solr-dev IRC, but I was AFK for a while, sorry.)

I think the change I made to buildAndPushRelease.py, which fixed a problem I had with building the 7.0.1 RC that sounds suspiciously like what you’re encountering, might help?  I didn’t commit to branch_6_6, but here’s the branch_7_0 commit: <https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=lucene-solr.git;a=commit;h=8d6c3889>

Here’s the branch_6_6 version:

  result = p.poll()
  if result is not None:
    msg = '    FAILED: %s [see log %s]' % (command, LOG)

Null is returned by poll() to indicate that the process has not terminated.  So what’s AFAICT happening to you is that the process *is* terminating in time, and is returning 0 (for success), which is not Null, which triggers failure.  This is wrong.  My patch switches this code to use wait() instead of poll():

  try:
    result = p.wait(timeout=120)
    if result != 0:
      msg = '    FAILED: %s [see log %s]' % (command, LOG)
      print(msg)
      raise RuntimeError(msg)
  except TimeoutExpired:
    msg = '    FAILED: %s [timed out after 2 minutes; see log %s]' % (command, LOG)


--
Steve
www.lucidworks.com

> On Oct 15, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Update on the RC: I'm trying to build one for some time now. The latest situation is that all the steps seem to be going well, but still the script fails: https://gist.github.com/chatman/fa307c3e8253d2014d0e7bb381328396
> 
> Looking into what could be going wrong. Any help is most welcome.
> 
> @Shalin, I remember you mentioned that you found a way to build the artifacts separately and signing them separately. Can you please share how to do so? It will save me a lot of time; currently each of my attempts is building artifacts from scratch.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ishan
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks! I ran precommit and test after the commit and all's well....
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No problem, I'll pick up your commit. :-)
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Committed now.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael: Good catch. Have I mentioned lately that Git and I don't get along? Apparently I was in some weird state when I tried to push.
> 
> Ishan: Many apologies, but I'll have to push again, is it too late to re-spin?
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here are the logs of two failed runs, FYI.
> http://textsearch.io/tests.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
> http://textsearch.io/tests2.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FYI, I've been struggling to run tests for past 4-5 hours. About 10-15 of them failed on every run; I tried all the branches, variety of different machines (Intel i7 Haswell-E, Ryzen 1700, Threadripper 1950X). My JDK version on all of these are 8u144.
> 
> Finally, figured out that all my machines had the latest 4.12.14-300.fc26.x86_64 or 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64 kernels. When I downgraded the kernel to 4.11.6-201.fc25.x86_64, the tests started running as usual. Now, I'll try to build the RC for 6.6.2 on this kernel. Is this a known issue?
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Done both for 6.6 and 6x
> 
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure Erick, please go ahead.
> I'll start the release later today.
> Thanks,
> Ishan
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ishan: 
> 
> I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing it. Give me a few.
> 
> The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt. Currently it's in 7.0.1 and 7.1. 
> 
> I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and leaving it in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master.
> 
> I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear back from you sooner.
> 
> Erick
> 
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <ta...@mitre.org> wrote:
> Sounds good.  Thank you!
> 
>  
> 
> From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 6.6.2 Release
> 
>  
> 
> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is no. 😊
> 
> Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as to mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is not committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it included in a later release, if needed.
> 
> +1 to SOLR-11297.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
> 
> * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the process
> 
> * helps users upgrade to later versions
> 
> * documentation
> 
>  
> 
> +1 to SOLR-11297
> 
>  
> 
> I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat issue?
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto if the answer is no....
> 
>  
> 
> It's quite a safe fix though.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <ta...@mitre.org> wrote:
> 
> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is no. 😊
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you!
> 
>  
> 
> From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: 6.6.2 Release
> 
>  
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
> 
> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants to do so or has an objection.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ishan
> 
> 
> 
> [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-please-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-exploit-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
> 
>  
> 
> --
> 
> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
> 
> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com>.

Update on the RC: I'm trying to build one for some time now. The latest
situation is that all the steps seem to be going well, but still the script
fails: https://gist.github.com/chatman/fa307c3e8253d2014d0e7bb381328396

Looking into what could be going wrong. Any help is most welcome.

@Shalin, I remember you mentioned that you found a way to build the
artifacts separately and signing them separately. Can you please share how
to do so? It will save me a lot of time; currently each of my attempts is
building artifacts from scratch.

Thanks,
Ishan

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks! I ran precommit and test after the commit and all's well....
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No problem, I'll pick up your commit. :-)
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Committed now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael: Good catch. Have I mentioned lately that Git and I don't get
>>>> along? Apparently I was in some weird state when I tried to push.
>>>>
>>>> Ishan: Many apologies, but I'll have to push again, is it too late to
>>>> re-spin?
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here are the logs of two failed runs, FYI.
>>>>> http://textsearch.io/tests.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
>>>>> http://textsearch.io/tests2.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI, I've been struggling to run tests for past 4-5 hours. About
>>>>>> 10-15 of them failed on every run; I tried all the branches, variety of
>>>>>> different machines (Intel i7 Haswell-E, Ryzen 1700, Threadripper 1950X). My
>>>>>> JDK version on all of these are 8u144.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, figured out that all my machines had the latest
>>>>>> 4.12.14-300.fc26.x86_64 or 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64 kernels. When I
>>>>>> downgraded the kernel to 4.11.6-201.fc25.x86_64, the tests started running
>>>>>> as usual. Now, I'll try to build the RC for 6.6.2 on this kernel. Is this a
>>>>>> known issue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Erick Erickson <
>>>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Done both for 6.6 and 6x
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>>>>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure Erick, please go ahead.
>>>>>>>> I'll start the release later today.
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Ishan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Erick Erickson <
>>>>>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ishan:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing
>>>>>>>>> it. Give me a few.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt.
>>>>>>>>> Currently it's in 7.0.1 and 7.1.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and
>>>>>>>>> leaving it in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear
>>>>>>>>> back from you sooner.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Erick
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>>>>>>>>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sounds good.  Thank you!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
>>>>>>>>>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: 6.6.2 Release
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the
>>>>>>>>>> answer is no. 😊
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so
>>>>>>>>>> as to mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this
>>>>>>>>>> is not committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it
>>>>>>>>>> included in a later release, if needed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 to SOLR-11297.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <
>>>>>>>>>> david.w.smiley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in
>>>>>>>>>> the process
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * helps users upgrade to later versions
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * documentation
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 to SOLR-11297
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a
>>>>>>>>>> back-compat issue?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <
>>>>>>>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections.
>>>>>>>>>> Ditto if the answer is no....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's quite a safe fix though.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>>>>>>>>>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the
>>>>>>>>>> answer is no. 😊
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
>>>>>>>>>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* 6.6.2 Release
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else
>>>>>>>>>> wants to do so or has an objection.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ishan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr
>>>>>>>>>> /news.html#12-october-2017-please-secure-your-apache-solr-se
>>>>>>>>>> rvers-since-a-zero-day-exploit-has-been-reported-on-a-public
>>>>>>>>>> -mailing-list
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author,
>>>>>>>>>> Speaker
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>.

Thanks! I ran precommit and test after the commit and all's well....

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:

> No problem, I'll pick up your commit. :-)
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Committed now.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael: Good catch. Have I mentioned lately that Git and I don't get
>>> along? Apparently I was in some weird state when I tried to push.
>>>
>>> Ishan: Many apologies, but I'll have to push again, is it too late to
>>> re-spin?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here are the logs of two failed runs, FYI.
>>>> http://textsearch.io/tests.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
>>>> http://textsearch.io/tests2.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> FYI, I've been struggling to run tests for past 4-5 hours. About 10-15
>>>>> of them failed on every run; I tried all the branches, variety of different
>>>>> machines (Intel i7 Haswell-E, Ryzen 1700, Threadripper 1950X). My JDK
>>>>> version on all of these are 8u144.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, figured out that all my machines had the latest
>>>>> 4.12.14-300.fc26.x86_64 or 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64 kernels. When I
>>>>> downgraded the kernel to 4.11.6-201.fc25.x86_64, the tests started running
>>>>> as usual. Now, I'll try to build the RC for 6.6.2 on this kernel. Is this a
>>>>> known issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Erick Erickson <
>>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Done both for 6.6 and 6x
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>>>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure Erick, please go ahead.
>>>>>>> I'll start the release later today.
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Ishan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Erick Erickson <
>>>>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ishan:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing
>>>>>>>> it. Give me a few.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt.
>>>>>>>> Currently it's in 7.0.1 and 7.1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and
>>>>>>>> leaving it in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear
>>>>>>>> back from you sooner.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Erick
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>>>>>>>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds good.  Thank you!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
>>>>>>>>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: 6.6.2 Release
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the
>>>>>>>>> answer is no. 😊
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so
>>>>>>>>> as to mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this
>>>>>>>>> is not committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it
>>>>>>>>> included in a later release, if needed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 to SOLR-11297.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <
>>>>>>>>> david.w.smiley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in
>>>>>>>>> the process
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * helps users upgrade to later versions
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * documentation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 to SOLR-11297
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a
>>>>>>>>> back-compat issue?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <
>>>>>>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections.
>>>>>>>>> Ditto if the answer is no....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's quite a safe fix though.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>>>>>>>>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer
>>>>>>>>> is no. 😊
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
>>>>>>>>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* 6.6.2 Release
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else
>>>>>>>>> wants to do so or has an objection.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ishan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-ple
>>>>>>>>> ase-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-exploit
>>>>>>>>> -has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author,
>>>>>>>>> Speaker
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com>.

No problem, I'll pick up your commit. :-)

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Committed now.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Michael: Good catch. Have I mentioned lately that Git and I don't get
>> along? Apparently I was in some weird state when I tried to push.
>>
>> Ishan: Many apologies, but I'll have to push again, is it too late to
>> re-spin?
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Here are the logs of two failed runs, FYI.
>>> http://textsearch.io/tests.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
>>> http://textsearch.io/tests2.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> FYI, I've been struggling to run tests for past 4-5 hours. About 10-15
>>>> of them failed on every run; I tried all the branches, variety of different
>>>> machines (Intel i7 Haswell-E, Ryzen 1700, Threadripper 1950X). My JDK
>>>> version on all of these are 8u144.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, figured out that all my machines had the latest
>>>> 4.12.14-300.fc26.x86_64 or 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64 kernels. When I
>>>> downgraded the kernel to 4.11.6-201.fc25.x86_64, the tests started running
>>>> as usual. Now, I'll try to build the RC for 6.6.2 on this kernel. Is this a
>>>> known issue?
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Erick Erickson <
>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Done both for 6.6 and 6x
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure Erick, please go ahead.
>>>>>> I'll start the release later today.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Ishan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Erick Erickson <
>>>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ishan:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing it.
>>>>>>> Give me a few.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt. Currently
>>>>>>> it's in 7.0.1 and 7.1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and
>>>>>>> leaving it in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear
>>>>>>> back from you sooner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Erick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>>>>>>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds good.  Thank you!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
>>>>>>>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: 6.6.2 Release
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the
>>>>>>>> answer is no. 😊
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so
>>>>>>>> as to mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this
>>>>>>>> is not committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it
>>>>>>>> included in a later release, if needed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 to SOLR-11297.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <
>>>>>>>> david.w.smiley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in
>>>>>>>> the process
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * helps users upgrade to later versions
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * documentation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 to SOLR-11297
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat
>>>>>>>> issue?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <
>>>>>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections.
>>>>>>>> Ditto if the answer is no....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's quite a safe fix though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>>>>>>>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer
>>>>>>>> is no. 😊
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
>>>>>>>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>>>> *Subject:* 6.6.2 Release
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else
>>>>>>>> wants to do so or has an objection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ishan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-ple
>>>>>>>> ase-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-exploit
>>>>>>>> -has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
>>>>>>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>.

Committed now.



On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Michael: Good catch. Have I mentioned lately that Git and I don't get
> along? Apparently I was in some weird state when I tried to push.
>
> Ishan: Many apologies, but I'll have to push again, is it too late to
> re-spin?
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Here are the logs of two failed runs, FYI.
>> http://textsearch.io/tests.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
>> http://textsearch.io/tests2.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> FYI, I've been struggling to run tests for past 4-5 hours. About 10-15
>>> of them failed on every run; I tried all the branches, variety of different
>>> machines (Intel i7 Haswell-E, Ryzen 1700, Threadripper 1950X). My JDK
>>> version on all of these are 8u144.
>>>
>>> Finally, figured out that all my machines had the latest
>>> 4.12.14-300.fc26.x86_64 or 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64 kernels. When I
>>> downgraded the kernel to 4.11.6-201.fc25.x86_64, the tests started running
>>> as usual. Now, I'll try to build the RC for 6.6.2 on this kernel. Is this a
>>> known issue?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Done both for 6.6 and 6x
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sure Erick, please go ahead.
>>>>> I'll start the release later today.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Ishan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Erick Erickson <
>>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ishan:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing it.
>>>>>> Give me a few.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt. Currently
>>>>>> it's in 7.0.1 and 7.1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and
>>>>>> leaving it in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear back
>>>>>> from you sooner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Erick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>>>>>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds good.  Thank you!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
>>>>>>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: 6.6.2 Release
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer
>>>>>>> is no. 😊
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as
>>>>>>> to mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is
>>>>>>> not committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it
>>>>>>> included in a later release, if needed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 to SOLR-11297.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <
>>>>>>> david.w.smiley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in
>>>>>>> the process
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * helps users upgrade to later versions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * documentation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 to SOLR-11297
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat
>>>>>>> issue?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <
>>>>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto
>>>>>>> if the answer is no....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's quite a safe fix though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>>>>>>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer
>>>>>>> is no. 😊
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
>>>>>>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>>> *Subject:* 6.6.2 Release
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else
>>>>>>> wants to do so or has an objection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ishan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-ple
>>>>>>> ase-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-exploit
>>>>>>> -has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
>>>>>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>.

Michael: Good catch. Have I mentioned lately that Git and I don't get
along? Apparently I was in some weird state when I tried to push.

Ishan: Many apologies, but I'll have to push again, is it too late to
re-spin?

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here are the logs of two failed runs, FYI.
> http://textsearch.io/tests.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
> http://textsearch.io/tests2.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> FYI, I've been struggling to run tests for past 4-5 hours. About 10-15 of
>> them failed on every run; I tried all the branches, variety of different
>> machines (Intel i7 Haswell-E, Ryzen 1700, Threadripper 1950X). My JDK
>> version on all of these are 8u144.
>>
>> Finally, figured out that all my machines had the latest
>> 4.12.14-300.fc26.x86_64 or 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64 kernels. When I
>> downgraded the kernel to 4.11.6-201.fc25.x86_64, the tests started running
>> as usual. Now, I'll try to build the RC for 6.6.2 on this kernel. Is this a
>> known issue?
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Done both for 6.6 and 6x
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sure Erick, please go ahead.
>>>> I'll start the release later today.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Ishan
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Erick Erickson <
>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ishan:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing it.
>>>>> Give me a few.
>>>>>
>>>>> The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt. Currently
>>>>> it's in 7.0.1 and 7.1.
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and
>>>>> leaving it in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear back
>>>>> from you sooner.
>>>>>
>>>>> Erick
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>>>>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds good.  Thank you!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
>>>>>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: 6.6.2 Release
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer
>>>>>> is no. 😊
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as
>>>>>> to mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is
>>>>>> not committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it
>>>>>> included in a later release, if needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 to SOLR-11297.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <
>>>>>> david.w.smiley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the
>>>>>> process
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * helps users upgrade to later versions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * documentation
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 to SOLR-11297
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat
>>>>>> issue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <
>>>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto
>>>>>> if the answer is no....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's quite a safe fix though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>>>>>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is
>>>>>> no. 😊
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
>>>>>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>> *Subject:* 6.6.2 Release
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else
>>>>>> wants to do so or has an objection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ishan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-ple
>>>>>> ase-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-exploit
>>>>>> -has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
>>>>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com>.

Here are the logs of two failed runs, FYI.
http://textsearch.io/tests.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)
http://textsearch.io/tests2.log.gz (kernel: 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64)

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:

> FYI, I've been struggling to run tests for past 4-5 hours. About 10-15 of
> them failed on every run; I tried all the branches, variety of different
> machines (Intel i7 Haswell-E, Ryzen 1700, Threadripper 1950X). My JDK
> version on all of these are 8u144.
>
> Finally, figured out that all my machines had the latest
> 4.12.14-300.fc26.x86_64 or 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64 kernels. When I
> downgraded the kernel to 4.11.6-201.fc25.x86_64, the tests started running
> as usual. Now, I'll try to build the RC for 6.6.2 on this kernel. Is this a
> known issue?
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Done both for 6.6 and 6x
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure Erick, please go ahead.
>>> I'll start the release later today.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ishan
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ishan:
>>>>
>>>> I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing it.
>>>> Give me a few.
>>>>
>>>> The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt. Currently
>>>> it's in 7.0.1 and 7.1.
>>>>
>>>> I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and
>>>> leaving it in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master.
>>>>
>>>> I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear back
>>>> from you sooner.
>>>>
>>>> Erick
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>>>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sounds good.  Thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
>>>>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: 6.6.2 Release
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer
>>>>> is no. 😊
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as
>>>>> to mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is
>>>>> not committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it
>>>>> included in a later release, if needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 to SOLR-11297.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <
>>>>> david.w.smiley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
>>>>>
>>>>> * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the
>>>>> process
>>>>>
>>>>> * helps users upgrade to later versions
>>>>>
>>>>> * documentation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 to SOLR-11297
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat
>>>>> issue?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <
>>>>> erickerickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto
>>>>> if the answer is no....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's quite a safe fix though.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>>>>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is
>>>>> no. 😊
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
>>>>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> *Subject:* 6.6.2 Release
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else
>>>>> wants to do so or has an objection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ishan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-ple
>>>>> ase-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-exploit
>>>>> -has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
>>>>>
>>>>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
>>>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com>.

FYI, I've been struggling to run tests for past 4-5 hours. About 10-15 of
them failed on every run; I tried all the branches, variety of different
machines (Intel i7 Haswell-E, Ryzen 1700, Threadripper 1950X). My JDK
version on all of these are 8u144.

Finally, figured out that all my machines had the latest
4.12.14-300.fc26.x86_64 or 4.13.5-200.fc26.x86_64 kernels. When I
downgraded the kernel to 4.11.6-201.fc25.x86_64, the tests started running
as usual. Now, I'll try to build the RC for 6.6.2 on this kernel. Is this a
known issue?

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Done both for 6.6 and 6x
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sure Erick, please go ahead.
>> I'll start the release later today.
>> Thanks,
>> Ishan
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ishan:
>>>
>>> I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing it.
>>> Give me a few.
>>>
>>> The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt. Currently
>>> it's in 7.0.1 and 7.1.
>>>
>>> I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and
>>> leaving it in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master.
>>>
>>> I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear back
>>> from you sooner.
>>>
>>> Erick
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <tallison@mitre.org
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sounds good.  Thank you!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
>>>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: 6.6.2 Release
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is
>>>> no. 😊
>>>>
>>>> Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as to
>>>> mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is not
>>>> committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it
>>>> included in a later release, if needed.
>>>>
>>>> +1 to SOLR-11297.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <da...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
>>>>
>>>> * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the
>>>> process
>>>>
>>>> * helps users upgrade to later versions
>>>>
>>>> * documentation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1 to SOLR-11297
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat
>>>> issue?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto if
>>>> the answer is no....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's quite a safe fix though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <
>>>> tallison@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is
>>>> no. 😊
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
>>>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>> *Subject:* 6.6.2 Release
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants
>>>> to do so or has an objection.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Ishan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-ple
>>>> ase-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-exploit
>>>> -has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
>>>>
>>>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
>>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>.

Done both for 6.6 and 6x

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sure Erick, please go ahead.
> I'll start the release later today.
> Thanks,
> Ishan
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ishan:
>>
>> I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing it. Give
>> me a few.
>>
>> The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt. Currently it's
>> in 7.0.1 and 7.1.
>>
>> I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and leaving
>> it in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master.
>>
>> I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear back
>> from you sooner.
>>
>> Erick
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <ta...@mitre.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds good.  Thank you!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
>>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: 6.6.2 Release
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is
>>> no. 😊
>>>
>>> Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as to
>>> mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is not
>>> committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it
>>> included in a later release, if needed.
>>>
>>> +1 to SOLR-11297.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <da...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
>>>
>>> * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the
>>> process
>>>
>>> * helps users upgrade to later versions
>>>
>>> * documentation
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +1 to SOLR-11297
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat
>>> issue?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto if
>>> the answer is no....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's quite a safe fix though.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <ta...@mitre.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is
>>> no. 😊
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
>>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> *Subject:* 6.6.2 Release
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants
>>> to do so or has an objection.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ishan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-ple
>>> ase-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-explo
>>> it-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
>>>
>>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
>>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com>.

Sure Erick, please go ahead.
I'll start the release later today.
Thanks,
Ishan

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ishan:
>
> I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing it. Give
> me a few.
>
> The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt. Currently it's
> in 7.0.1 and 7.1.
>
> I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and leaving
> it in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master.
>
> I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear back from
> you sooner.
>
> Erick
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <ta...@mitre.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Sounds good.  Thank you!
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>> *Subject:* Re: 6.6.2 Release
>>
>>
>>
>> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is
>> no. 😊
>>
>> Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as to
>> mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is not
>> committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it
>> included in a later release, if needed.
>>
>> +1 to SOLR-11297.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
>>
>> * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the
>> process
>>
>> * helps users upgrade to later versions
>>
>> * documentation
>>
>>
>>
>> +1 to SOLR-11297
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat issue?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto if
>> the answer is no....
>>
>>
>>
>> It's quite a safe fix though.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <ta...@mitre.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is no.
>> 😊
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>> *Subject:* 6.6.2 Release
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>>
>> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants
>> to do so or has an objection.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ishan
>>
>>
>>
>> [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-
>> please-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-
>> exploit-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
>>
>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
>> http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>.

Ishan:

I have 11297 ready to rock-n-roll, it's just a matter of pushing it. Give
me a few.

The thing I'm not clear on is what to do with CHANGES.txt. Currently it's
in 7.0.1 and 7.1.

I propose adding a 6.6.2 section to 6x and including it there and leaving
it in the 7.0.1 and 7.1 sections of master.

I'll do it that way, you can change it if you want unless I hear back from
you sooner.

Erick

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <ta...@mitre.org>
wrote:

> Sounds good.  Thank you!
>
>
>
> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: 6.6.2 Release
>
>
>
> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is
> no. 😊
>
> Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as to
> mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is not
> committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it
> included in a later release, if needed.
>
> +1 to SOLR-11297.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
>
> * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the
> process
>
> * helps users upgrade to later versions
>
> * documentation
>
>
>
> +1 to SOLR-11297
>
>
>
> I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat issue?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto if
> the answer is no....
>
>
>
> It's quite a safe fix though.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <ta...@mitre.org>
> wrote:
>
> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is no.
> 😊
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
> *Subject:* 6.6.2 Release
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>
> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants to
> do so or has an objection.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ishan
>
>
>
> [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-
> 2017-please-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-
> zero-day-exploit-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
>
>
>
> --
>
> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
>
> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: http://www.
> solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>
>
>

RE: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by "Allison, Timothy B." <ta...@mitre.org>.

Sounds good.  Thank you!

From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:25 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: 6.6.2 Release

> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is no. 😊
Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as to mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is not committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it included in a later release, if needed.
+1 to SOLR-11297.

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <da...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
* fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the process
* helps users upgrade to later versions
* documentation

+1 to SOLR-11297

I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat issue?

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto if the answer is no....

It's quite a safe fix though.

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <ta...@mitre.org>> wrote:
Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is no. 😊

Thank you!

From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org<ma...@lucene.apache.org>
Subject: 6.6.2 Release

Hi,
In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants to do so or has an objection.
Regards,
Ishan

[0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-please-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-exploit-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list

--
Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com>.

Thanks Uwe, you beat me to it (I was trying to do that myself).
I'll backport SOLR-11297 and start the release process in about 3 hours
from now.

Regards,
Ishan

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:

> You can start the release, the second part of the security incident
> (SOLR-11482) is also in.
>
>
>
> Uwe
>
>
>
> -----
>
> Uwe Schindler
>
> Achterdiek 19
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Achterdiek+19&entry=gmail&source=g>, D-28357
> Bremen
>
> http://www.thetaphi.de
>
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>
>
>
> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 11:25 PM
> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: 6.6.2 Release
>
>
>
> > Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is
> no. 😊
>
> Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as to
> mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is not
> committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it
> included in a later release, if needed.
>
> +1 to SOLR-11297.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
>
> * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the
> process
>
> * helps users upgrade to later versions
>
> * documentation
>
>
>
> +1 to SOLR-11297
>
>
>
> I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat issue?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto if
> the answer is no....
>
>
>
> It's quite a safe fix though.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <ta...@mitre.org>
> wrote:
>
> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is no.
> 😊
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
> *Subject:* 6.6.2 Release
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>
> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants to
> do so or has an objection.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ishan
>
>
>
> [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-
> 2017-please-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-
> zero-day-exploit-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
>
>
>
> --
>
> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
>
> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: http://www.
> solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>
>
>

RE: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.

You can start the release, the second part of the security incident (SOLR-11482) is also in.

 

Uwe

 

-----

Uwe Schindler

Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen

http://www.thetaphi.de <http://www.thetaphi.de/> 

eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de

 

From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 11:25 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: 6.6.2 Release

 

> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is no. 😊

Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as to mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is not committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it included in a later release, if needed.

+1 to SOLR-11297. 

 

 

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <david.w.smiley@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:

* fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the process

* helps users upgrade to later versions

* documentation

 

+1 to SOLR-11297

 

I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat issue?

 

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <erickerickson@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto if the answer is no....

 

It's quite a safe fix though.

 

 

 

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <tallison@mitre.org <ma...@mitre.org> > wrote:

Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is no. 😊

 

Thank you!

 

From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org <ma...@lucene.apache.org> 
Subject: 6.6.2 Release

 

Hi,

In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.

I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants to do so or has an objection.

Regards,

Ishan



[0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-please-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-exploit-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list

 

-- 

Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker

LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ic...@gmail.com>.

> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is no.
😊
Currently, I want to have this release out as soon as possible so as to
mitigate the risk exposure of the security vulnerability. Since this is not
committed yet, I'd vote for leaving this out and possibly having it
included in a later release, if needed.

+1 to SOLR-11297.


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 2:32 AM, David Smiley <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
> * fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the
> process
> * helps users upgrade to later versions
> * documentation
>
> +1 to SOLR-11297
>
> I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat issue?
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto if
>> the answer is no....
>>
>> It's quite a safe fix though.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <ta...@mitre.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is
>>> no. 😊
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
>>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> *Subject:* 6.6.2 Release
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants
>>> to do so or has an objection.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ishan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-
>>> 2017-please-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-
>>> zero-day-exploit-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
>>>
>>
>> --
> Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: http://www.
> solrenterprisesearchserver.com
>

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by David Smiley <da...@gmail.com>.

Suggested criteria for bug-fix release issues:
* fixes a bug :-)     and doesn't harm backwards-compatibility in the
process
* helps users upgrade to later versions
* documentation

+1 to SOLR-11297

I'm not sure on SOLR-11450.  Seems it might introduce a back-compat issue?

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto if
> the answer is no....
>
> It's quite a safe fix though.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <ta...@mitre.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is no.
>> 😊
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
>> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
>> *Subject:* 6.6.2 Release
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>>
>> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants
>> to do so or has an objection.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ishan
>>
>>
>>
>> [0] -
>> https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-please-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-exploit-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
>>
>
> --
Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com

Re: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>.

I'd also like to get SOLR-11297 in if there are no objections. Ditto if the
answer is no....

It's quite a safe fix though.



On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Allison, Timothy B. <ta...@mitre.org>
wrote:

> Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is no.
> 😊
>
>
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
> *From:* Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
> *To:* dev@lucene.apache.org
> *Subject:* 6.6.2 Release
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
>
> I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants to
> do so or has an objection.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ishan
>
>
>
> [0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-
> 2017-please-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-
> zero-day-exploit-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list
>

RE: 6.6.2 Release

Posted by "Allison, Timothy B." <ta...@mitre.org>.

Any chance we could get SOLR-11450 in?  I understand if the answer is no. 😊

Thank you!

From: Ishan Chattopadhyaya [mailto:ichattopadhyaya@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:23 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: 6.6.2 Release

Hi,
In light of [0], we need a 6.6.2 release as soon as possible.
I'd like to volunteer to RM for this release, unless someone else wants to do so or has an objection.
Regards,
Ishan

[0] - https://lucene.apache.org/solr/news.html#12-october-2017-please-secure-your-apache-solr-servers-since-a-zero-day-exploit-has-been-reported-on-a-public-mailing-list