You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> on 2012/06/09 04:54:08 UTC
VOTE: Lucene/Solr 4.0-ALPHA
Please vote to release these artifacts: http://s.apache.org/lusolr40arc0
--
lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 4.0-ALPHA
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Steven A Rowe <sa...@syr.edu> wrote:
> I ran smokeTestRelease.py on Windows+Cygwin. Several "***WARNING***: javadocs want to fail!" messages.
these are ok and expected, it means there exist some public/protected
classes without javadocs :)
we cant totally enforce this yet, until we fix some modules [core,
grouping, highlighter, queries, queryparser, spatial, test-framework]
to have javadocs for all public/protected classes. So these modules
only enforce this currently at "package" level until they are fixed.
See lucene/build.xml line 191. when a module is fixed, we then turn it
on at "class" level and hudson will fail if anyone adds classes
without javadocs.
And when all modules are fixed we should start warning at method/class
member level and reiterate until all public/protected stuff has
javadocs (like the style guidelines say!)
>
> And also javadocs warnings that did trigger a failure under Solr:
Thanks: I don't know whats going on here. It might just be an issue
with the smoketester (i only hacked it up to work on linux, it could
have bugs on windows!), because we dont see these warnings from Uwe's
hudson.
--
lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 4.0-ALPHA
Posted by Steven A Rowe <sa...@syr.edu>.
I ran smokeTestRelease.py on Windows+Cygwin. Several "***WARNING***: javadocs want to fail!" messages.
And also javadocs warnings that did trigger a failure under Solr:
unpack apache-solr-4.0.0-ALPHA.zip...
test solr example w/ Java 6...
File "/home/s/svn/lucene/dev/branches/branch_4x/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 1092, in smokeTest
unpack('solr', tmpDir, 'apache-solr-%s-src.tgz' % version, version)
File "/home/s/svn/lucene/dev/branches/branch_4x/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 418, in unpack
verifyUnpacked(project, artifact, unpackPath, version, tmpDir)
File "/home/s/svn/lucene/dev/branches/branch_4x/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 501, in verifyUnpacked
run('%s; ant javadocs' % javaExe('1.6'), '%s/javadocs.log' % unpackPath)
File "/home/s/svn/lucene/dev/branches/branch_4x/dev-tools/scripts/smokeTestRelease.py", line 346, in run
raise RuntimeError('command "%s" failed; see log file %s' % (command, logPath))
RuntimeError: command "export JAVA_HOME="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Java/jdk1.6.0_21" PATH="/cygdrive/c/Program Files/Java/jdk1.6.0_21/bin:$PATH"; ant javadocs" failed; see log file /home/s/temp/lucene.smoke.tester/tmpDir/unpack/apache-solr-4.0.0-ALPHA/javadocs.log
And in javadocs.log:
[javadoc] Constructing Javadoc information...
[javadoc] Standard Doclet version 1.6.0_21
[javadoc] Building tree for all the packages and classes...
[javadoc] C:\cygwin\home\s\temp\lucene.smoke.tester\tmpDir\unpack\apache-solr-4.0.0-ALPHA\solr\solrj\src\java\org\apache\solr\client\solrj\util\ClientUtils.java:200: warning - Tag @link: reference not found: org.apache.lucene.queryparser.classic queryparser syntax
[javadoc] C:\cygwin\home\s\temp\lucene.smoke.tester\tmpDir\unpack\apache-solr-4.0.0-ALPHA\solr\solrj\src\java\org\apache\solr\client\solrj\util\ClientUtils.java:200: warning - Tag @link: reference not found: org.apache.lucene.queryparser.classic queryparser syntax
[javadoc] Generating C:\cygwin\home\s\temp\lucene.smoke.tester\tmpDir\unpack\apache-solr-4.0.0-ALPHA\solr\build\docs\api\org/apache/solr/uima/processor/exception/\FieldMappingException.html...
[javadoc] Copying file C:\cygwin\home\s\temp\lucene.smoke.tester\tmpDir\unpack\apache-solr-4.0.0-ALPHA\solr\core\src\java\doc-files\tutorial.html to directory C:\cygwin\home\s\temp\lucene.smoke.tester\tmpDir\unpack\apache-solr-4.0.0-ALPHA\solr\build\docs\api\doc-files...
[javadoc] Generating C:\cygwin\home\s\temp\lucene.smoke.tester\tmpDir\unpack\apache-solr-4.0.0-ALPHA\solr\build\docs\api\org/apache/solr/util/\package-summary.html...
[javadoc] Copying file C:\cygwin\home\s\temp\lucene.smoke.tester\tmpDir\unpack\apache-solr-4.0.0-ALPHA\solr\core\src\java\org\apache\solr\util\doc-files\min-should-match.html to directory C:\cygwin\home\s\temp\lucene.smoke.tester\tmpDir\unpack\apache-solr-4.0.0-ALPHA\solr\build\docs\api\org\apache\solr\util\doc-files...
[javadoc] Building index for all the packages and classes...
[javadoc] Building index for all classes...
[javadoc] Picked up JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS: -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8
[javadoc] Generating C:\cygwin\home\s\temp\lucene.smoke.tester\tmpDir\unpack\apache-solr-4.0.0-ALPHA\solr\build\docs\api\stylesheet.css...
[javadoc] 2 warnings
BUILD FAILED
C:\cygwin\home\s\temp\lucene.smoke.tester\tmpDir\unpack\apache-solr-4.0.0-ALPHA\build.xml:38: The following error occurred while executing this line:
C:\cygwin\home\s\temp\lucene.smoke.tester\tmpDir\unpack\apache-solr-4.0.0-ALPHA\solr\build.xml:515: The following error occurred while executing this line:
C:\cygwin\home\s\temp\lucene.smoke.tester\tmpDir\unpack\apache-solr-4.0.0-ALPHA\solr\common-build.xml:226: The following error occurred while executing this line:
C:\cygwin\home\s\temp\lucene.smoke.tester\tmpDir\unpack\apache-solr-4.0.0-ALPHA\lucene\common-build.xml:1400: Javadocs warnings were found!
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 10:54 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 4.0-ALPHA
Please vote to release these artifacts: http://s.apache.org/lusolr40arc0
--
lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 4.0-ALPHA
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 10, 2012, at 11:22 AM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
> I reviewed the Solr 4.0 wiki, which sounds as if the intent is for a single alpha and a single beta
If someone is willing to assemble a release and the release can get the release votes, there is no reason we can't have multiple alphas or betas.
Most things put on the wiki are guidelines or hopes more than anything - nothing is really set in stone. It's all subject to change given who expends what effort and what circumstances accumulate.
Bottom line, anyone can be an RM, anyone can build an alpha, beta, release candidate, etc. You just need to get three PMC members to vote for your release. Given that, it does not make a lot of sense to put too much into intent or plans IMO.
If circumstances warrant it, and someone is willing to make the releases, I'm sure we will do whatever makes the most sense given the feedback we get from the first alpha.
Maybe we have one alpha and multiple betas. Maybe we have one Alpha and decide to release. I think it makes sense to plan (hope?) minimally - that is, one alpha, one beta sounds reasonable in terms of a bunch of cats stating intent - and let further work arise from the release response.
- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Lucene/Solr 4.0-ALPHA
Posted by Jack Krupansky <ja...@basetechnology.com>.
Maybe beta RC's would fit the same need as additional alpha releases. Maybe
a new beta RC every week or two as significant changes accumulate would
satisfy user needs.
Maybe the real value in having an alpha release is not the release itself
(since nightly builds are readily available) but to publically mark the
milestone that development is now mostly complete and to signal
less-sophisticated users that they can now feel confident to begin serious
evaluation and that the clock is finally ticking down to a final release.
Meanwhile, more-sophisticated users can continue with nightly or local
builds as they always have.
One other question is whether the formal alpha release would "raise the bar"
for changes other than index changes. The 4.0 wiki indicates that
"additional features & API changes" would be permitted after the alpha,
suggesting a rather low bar. If there are such changes, I would argue for
more/earlier beta RCs to get user feedback on significant changes. Once
again, more-sophisticated users can access nightly builds anyway, so it is
more a matter of raising public awareness.
An early alpha and early beta RC could benefit users whose IT management
"policy" might be to avoid alpha releases and wait for beta (RC).
-- Jack Krupansky
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Muir
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 11:28 AM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 4.0-ALPHA
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Jack Krupansky
<ja...@basetechnology.com> wrote:
>
> So, I would suggest that there be a series of alpha releases (and betas)
> as
> significant bug fixes and improvements accumulate.
I won't do this. Someone else can if they want. Releasing is too
time-consuming, you dont just press a button.
--
lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 4.0-ALPHA
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Jack Krupansky
<ja...@basetechnology.com> wrote:
>
> So, I would suggest that there be a series of alpha releases (and betas) as
> significant bug fixes and improvements accumulate.
I won't do this. Someone else can if they want. Releasing is too
time-consuming, you dont just press a button.
--
lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 4.0-ALPHA
Posted by Jack Krupansky <ja...@basetechnology.com>.
Is the intent that there be only one alpha and one beta, or could there be a
series of either if bugs and improvements are significant enough?
I reviewed the Solr 4.0 wiki, which sounds as if the intent is for a single
alpha and a single beta, but I am wondering if that makes sense given the
current flow of changes and the desire to incorporate feedback as quickly as
possible.
So, I would suggest that there be a series of alpha releases (and betas) as
significant bug fixes and improvements accumulate. Maybe every week or two
if the changes are significant enough, until such time as the change flow is
low enough and the quality perception is high enough to advance to beta (and
release.)
Otherwise, if there can be only one alpha, maybe the bar needs to be set
higher for it because once it goes alpha, users will see no new release
until beta.
I would argue in favor of an earlier alpha with a somewhat lower bar, and
then have additional alpha releases as enough significant changes occur that
we would want to get user feedback on and users would want to get access.
Feedback and access would be the criteria for a new alpha. And index changes
for sure.
The real bottom line is that the current level of change flow seems to argue
against the current build being considered a "final alpha", although it
could reasonably be considered a "preliminary alpha".
I would also suggest the caveat that the primary difference between alpha
and beta is that re-indexing is more likely and should be assumed for an
alpha but not for beta (keep current beta language.) In other words, users
can feel comfortable "evaluating" an alpha, but not consider an alpha for
"production" unless they understand that they will have the burden for the
possible need for re-indexing to move up from that alpha.
I would also like to see a (relatively short) list of open Jira issues that
people feel really should get fixed before: 1) alpha, 2) beta, and 3) final
4.0 release.
Other than all of that, 4.0 is looking great!
-- Jack Krupansky
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Muir
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 10:54 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 4.0-ALPHA
Please vote to release these artifacts: http://s.apache.org/lusolr40arc0
--
lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 4.0-ALPHA
Posted by Steven A Rowe <sa...@syr.edu>.
Changes.html had a couple of problems related to the JIRA REST API URL changing (missing release dates, compound release numbers missing the second release number).
I've modified changes2html.pl to use the new URL.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 10:54 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 4.0-ALPHA
Please vote to release these artifacts: http://s.apache.org/lusolr40arc0
--
lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 4.0-ALPHA
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
It only means there is a vote for 4.0 alpha. if it succeeds, we will
support the index format (with the caveat if there is a huge blocker
bug, we will fix it correctly, but I think this caveat generally
always applies to any release really).
If the vote fails, we might need to change the format. I encourage
everyone to take a hard look at the 4.0 index format and look for
problems.
The whole point of the alpha is to provide this guarantee so that its
not just a nightly build that we blessed, but something that will
actually encourage adoption and hopefully result in useful feedback.
Its definitely not a trivial guarantee and we should take it really
seriously, but I feel pretty good about it after LUCENE-4055 and
LUCENE-4087.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Ryan McKinley <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does this mean there are no more index format change plans in the
> pipeline for 4.0?
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Please vote to release these artifacts: http://s.apache.org/lusolr40arc0
>>
>> --
>> lucidimagination.com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
--
lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: VOTE: Lucene/Solr 4.0-ALPHA
Posted by Ryan McKinley <ry...@gmail.com>.
Does this mean there are no more index format change plans in the
pipeline for 4.0?
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please vote to release these artifacts: http://s.apache.org/lusolr40arc0
>
> --
> lucidimagination.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org