You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Simon Willnauer <si...@googlemail.com> on 2011/11/22 17:43:35 UTC
[VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Please vote to release the RC2 artifacts at:
http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.5.0-RC2-rev1204988/
as Lucene 3.5.0 and Solr 3.5.0.
Simon Willnauer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Doron Cohen <cd...@gmail.com>.
+1 here.
For the lucene part I tested the following:
* md5 signatures:
for i in *md5; do; md5sum -c $i; done
lucene-3.5.0-src.tgz: OK
lucene-3.5.0.tgz: OK
lucene-3.5.0.zip: OK
* compare the size of tgz and zip extractions
* ant: clean + test + javadocs targets - all passed
* move one of my projects to use 3.5.0 - had to modify some code due to
(documented) API changes - all compiles and all tests passed.
* there are 55 jars in each of the packs, each code jar has a javadoc jar,
except for lucene-facet-3.5.0-examples.jar, which is ok, but it might
expose an issue here:
** what really is of value here are the example sources, so I wonder if for
example code like this, sources should be included with the jar, or perhaps
a separate jar with the sources should be packed.
** Perhaps, similarly, this also holds for lucene-demo-3.5.0.jar, where
users would like to have the source code of that demo, even if just
downloading the binary release.
If agreed to fix these it should be for future releases and is not a
release stopper.
RE: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
Here my +1:
- PANGAEA large index works without hotspot crashes or corrupt index :-)
- The javadocs of FilterIndexReader are fixed
- Benchmark builds and tests on windows, of course all others too
- HTML pages look correct
- CHANGES look correct
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Willnauer [mailto:simon.willnauer@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:44 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
>
> Please vote to release the RC2 artifacts at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.5.0-RC2-
> rev1204988/
>
> as Lucene 3.5.0 and Solr 3.5.0.
>
> Simon Willnauer
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>.
: Lucene: The last time this was done was with the 2.1.0 release. From
...
: Solr: Prior to the Lucene-Solr development merge, Solr always did the
...
Cool ... so I just haven't been paying attention and this is expected.
thanks.
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Steven A Rowe <sa...@syr.edu>.
> 2) if you build lucene or solr from source, the version in the artifact
> names are "3.5-SNAPSHOT" ... last time i checked, a release named "3.5"
> would have it's build.xml such that building from source w/o explicitly
> setting the version props would result in "3.6-SNAPSHOT" (or
> "3.5.1-SNAPSHOT") so it looks like perhaps we forgot to update the version
> on the branch before the release? ... either that or maybe there was a
> discussion about deliberately changing this that i just didn't notice?
Lucene: The last time this was done was with the 2.1.0 release. From 2.2.0 through 2.4.1, the source release build version was left the same as the release, with no -dev and in most cases not even the proper patch version included (e.g. 2.3.1+ and 2.4.1). The current practice -- leaving the version intact, including the -dev/-SNAPSHOT suffix -- began with the 2.9.1 release.
Solr: Prior to the Lucene-Solr development merge, Solr always did the set-the-source-release-version-to-the-next-patch-version thing (with the exception of 1.3, when the version was left the same as the release, very likely not intentionally).
Steve
RE: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
Hi,
>From my perspective the argument is:
A missing/temporary unavailable external resource is no problem of a
release. It was fixed by Oracle, so only temporary and all is fine again.
Just because you *may* not build javadocs at some time in the future does
not rectify to hold a release.
How do maven-based projects handle this? Do they never release because
maven-central at some time may be overloaded and may not deliver the
dependencies - or dependencies may got deleted because of error?
If this would be the case, there wouldn't be any project using maven on
earth - maybe we should have told them about those risks - the world would
be free of maven - juhee :-)
Happy Thanksgiving, god bless Maven!
Uwe
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> -----Original Message-----
> From: yseeley@gmail.com [mailto:yseeley@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yonik
> Seeley
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 11:30 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> > As far as I remember you cannot vote against...
>
> Re-read what I wrote: one should debate the merit of the actual
> argument/issues, not "your vote doesn't count".
>
> -Yonik
> http://www.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] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@googlemail.com>.
I think this issue should not block the release. We already rolled a
RC2 for a benchmark test and 3 lines of javadoc. This issue is not
really an issue IMO since the likelihood that those servers go down
for a long time is extremely low and if so folks can still download a
binary release or patch their src package with our fix. I'd be
surprised if anybody ever runs into this and it turns out to be an
issue for them. I mean we fix lowercase filter surrogate support for a
script a hand full of books on this planet use, fair enough but this
becomes somewhat ridiculous.
simon
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Yonik Seeley
<yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>> As far as I remember you cannot vote against...
>
> Re-read what I wrote: one should debate the merit of the actual
> argument/issues, not "your vote doesn't count".
>
> -Yonik
> http://www.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] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>.
: Sorry for being @UweSays!
: Uwe
Whoa .... that's a little too meta even for me ... it's turtles all the
way down!
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
I already posted my opinion, in another mail.
Sorry for being @UweSays!
Uwe
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_lucene@fucit.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 12:32 AM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
>
>
> : As far as I remember you cannot vote against...
>
> bull. fucking. shit.
>
> Release VOTEs can not be VETOed, but people are free to vote as they see
fit...
>
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> I cast my vote, and stated my opinions about respining. Discussion
ensued. If
> you don't like my vote, that's fine -- but please be clear on what people
can and
> can not do.
>
>
> -Hoss
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>.
: As far as I remember you cannot vote against...
bull. fucking. shit.
Release VOTEs can not be VETOed, but people are free to vote as they see
fit...
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
I cast my vote, and stated my opinions about respining. Discussion
ensued. If you don't like my vote, that's fine -- but please be clear
on what people can and can not do.
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> As far as I remember you cannot vote against...
Re-read what I wrote: one should debate the merit of the actual
argument/issues, not "your vote doesn't count".
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
As far as I remember you cannot vote against...
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> -----Original Message-----
> From: yseeley@gmail.com [mailto:yseeley@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yonik
> Seeley
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 11:04 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> > We already have more than three +1 votes, so where is the issue?
>
> If someone votes -1, the response shouldn't be "we already have 3
> +1s, so your -1 doesn't really matter".
> I think what you really meant to say was "I don't think this should block
the
> release, and I don't think we should take the time to respin."
>
> -Yonik
> http://www.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] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> We already have more than three +1 votes, so where is the issue?
If someone votes -1, the response shouldn't be "we already have 3
+1s, so your -1 doesn't really matter".
I think what you really meant to say was "I don't think this should
block the release, and I don't think we should take the time to
respin."
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
Hi,
Can we not simply release that package as it contains really important
security fixes? Fixing this issue can be done later and is not needed for
this release (otherwise we must fix all previous releases, because their
Javadocs are broken). We already have more than three +1 votes, so where is
the issue?
Uwe
P.S.: If we really want to respin, please take also LUCENE-3588 into
account.
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_lucene@fucit.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 6:49 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
>
>
> : This is why I agree with your fix (versus adding a regular expression
> : to ignore the warning in addition to Uwe's java 7 hack)... its just
> : about whether it should be a blocker to release or not.
> :
> : Because chances are within the 72 hour vote period the link starts
> : working again... if this happens will you rescind your -1?
>
> I can only VOTE on what is in front of me to test -- I'm not going to cast
my vote
> based on assumptions about what may or may not happen on oracle.com at
> some point after i cast my vote and prior to the artifacts hitting the
mirror.
>
> The fact that the oracle.com URL may work "now" doesn't change my vote,
> because it could just as easily stop working again tomrow. I consider it
a bug
> that the ability to generate documentation from source is entirely
dependent
> on an external URL that we have no control over what so ever.
>
>
> -Hoss
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>.
: This is why I agree with your fix (versus adding a regular expression
: to ignore the warning in addition to Uwe's java 7 hack)... its just
: about whether it should be a blocker to release or not.
:
: Because chances are within the 72 hour vote period the link starts
: working again... if this happens will you rescind your -1?
I can only VOTE on what is in front of me to test -- I'm not going to cast
my vote based on assumptions about what may or may not happen on
oracle.com at some point after i cast my vote and prior to the artifacts
hitting the mirror.
The fact that the oracle.com URL may work "now" doesn't change my vote,
because it could just as easily stop working again tomrow. I consider it
a bug that the ability to generate documentation from source is entirely
dependent on an external URL that we have no control over what so ever.
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Chris Hostetter
<ho...@fucit.org> wrote:
> (Remember: "fail on warning" is not a feature of javadoc, or the
> <javadoc/> nat target -- it's something special we do in our build.xml.
> It's sometihng that in general i think is a very good idea, and i don't
> suggest we change it, but it's the reason why we shouldn't just say "it's
> oracles problem" when javadoc spits out a warning because the URL is down)
>
While its true we do something special here to intentionally fail, I
actually think its still not our bug, should be a feature of javadoc,
and should be part of the ant target (they claim to strive for
reproducable builds)
If you don't fail on this warning, you don't actually have a
reproducable build: your 'javadocs' target generates different output
depending upon whether oracle's server is working correctly or not at
the time you ran it.
This is why I agree with your fix (versus adding a regular expression
to ignore the warning in addition to Uwe's java 7 hack)... its just
about whether it should be a blocker to release or not.
Because chances are within the 72 hour vote period the link starts
working again... if this happens will you rescind your -1?
--
lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>.
: But I'm just pointing out that with "bugs" like the javadocs thing,
: its not really a lucene bug. Likely its a transient issue with
: oracle's configuration... does that mean all of our past releases are
: broken too???? Because, ant javadocs won't work there either.
Those releases are already out there, we can't change them, and if someone
asks "how come the build for 3.4 fails?" we can explain.
But shipping 3.5, knowing that everyone who tries to build it is going to
get a failure the minute it goes live, seems idiotic.
: I did a quick google search: "http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5/docs/api/" build.xml
...
: Are all of their build files "completely unusable". Should the java
Probably not, because I sincerly doubt those build.xml files jump through
all the hoops we jump through to fail hard on any javadoc warning.
(Remember: "fail on warning" is not a feature of javadoc, or the
<javadoc/> nat target -- it's something special we do in our build.xml.
It's sometihng that in general i think is a very good idea, and i don't
suggest we change it, but it's the reason why we shouldn't just say "it's
oracles problem" when javadoc spits out a warning because the URL is down)
So let's just fucking fix it once an for all, so we'll never-ever have to
care if Oracle screws up the package-list yet again, and so the 3.5 build
will actually *work*
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Chris Hostetter
<ho...@fucit.org> wrote:
>
> I mean seriously ... WTF is the point of a release that we know is broken
> for all users? the main reason we even have an RC2 is because one test
> (in a contrib!) would fail on some OS's -- if that's worth making RC2 then
> why the fuck isn't it worth making an RC3 when it's impossible to
> generate documentation on any fucking machine in the world?
>
I don't think that one should have been a blocker either...
But I'm just pointing out that with "bugs" like the javadocs thing,
its not really a lucene bug. Likely its a transient issue with
oracle's configuration... does that mean all of our past releases are
broken too???? Because, ant javadocs won't work there either.
I did a quick google search: "http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5/docs/api/" build.xml
and this came across build files from all kinds of big projects like
icu4j, hibernate, other apache projects like zookeeper, etc.
Are all of their build files "completely unusable". Should the java
world halt all development because oracle's servers return 404's, and
yank all previous releases and mark as broken?
--
lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>.
: If the fact that javadocs fails because Oracle removed the
: package-list for java5 javadocs is a blocker,
:
: then on RC3 should i vote -1 because the tests often completely hang
: on java5 due to JVM concurrency bugs?
a) API Compatibility has nothing to do with which JVM you choose to try
and run tests on. If the Oracle Java5 JVM is buggy, you're welcome to use
any other Java 1.5 compatible JVM you want -- but it doesn't change the
fact that the 3x branch is documented to be Java 1.5 compatible. If you
want to beat that horse some more go ahead, but it really has nothing to
do with this dicussion.
b) For the sake of argument: I do in fact think there is a huge difference
between the following caveats:
1) "Some tests may fail, sometimes, depending on your JVM/Platform."
2) "Building javadocs is garunteed to fail (regardless of your JVM
implementation, JVM Version, or Platform) unless you override a
certain (undocumented) build property."
...if we're not going to care enough to respin an RC when the build.xml is
completley unusable (and we already have a patch to fix it!) then why
bother giving a crap if any of the code is usable? or if any tests pass?
I mean seriously ... WTF is the point of a release that we know is broken
for all users? the main reason we even have an RC2 is because one test
(in a contrib!) would fail on some OS's -- if that's worth making RC2 then
why the fuck isn't it worth making an RC3 when it's impossible to
generate documentation on any fucking machine in the world?
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Chris Hostetter
<ho...@fucit.org> wrote:
>
> ...I think we should not only commit them to trunk & 3x but also
> the 3.5 branch and spin an RC3. It would look really silly to release
> 3.5 RC2 with a hardcoded URL in the build.xml that 404s and fails the build.
>
And you seriously think this should block a release? Because we do
have really important bugfixes etc that would be nice to get out.
If the fact that javadocs fails because Oracle removed the
package-list for java5 javadocs is a blocker,
then on RC3 should i vote -1 because the tests often completely hang
on java5 due to JVM concurrency bugs?
These are just more reasons why I think we cannot support EOL'ed java5 anymore.
--
lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>.
: Agreed -- we shouldn't / can't ship a package-list from Oracle, but we
: should change the hardcoded javadoc.link value in common-build.xml to ""
: (ie: the empty string) ... that causes the build to succeed completely --
: if users want happy/shiny/pretty links to java.lang.* classes then they
: can override -- but they shouldn't have to dig through the build.xml just
: to figure out how to get a basic build to work cleanly.
I've put some patches in Jira to free us from Oracle's roller coaster of
javadoc link bullshit forever....
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3587
...I think we should not only commit them to trunk & 3x but also
the 3.5 branch and spin an RC3. It would look really silly to release
3.5 RC2 with a hardcoded URL in the build.xml that 404s and fails the build.
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
This jar-src error is known to me, there is missing a dependency that
creates build.dir J I never managed to fix it, but have seen it quite often.
We should ignore that for now.
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
<http://www.thetaphi.de/> http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
From: Shai Erera [mailto:serera@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 1:35 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
I ran my usual tests for RC2 and all pass, so +1 to release.
As for what's been said in this thread, I personally don't think that
javadoc errors such as reported should hold a release. But I think that it
will be good if we can define some criteria for accepting an RC.
For example, we can decide that running "ant test", or "ant all" on the
source release ends with "BUILD SUCCESSFUL". Or we can decide that only "ant
test". "ant jar" and "ant jar-src" end with BUILD SUCCESSFUL. Or whatever,
as long as it's clear to everyone what is a MUST for a release. Perhaps it's
already there, I don't know.
BTW, if I run "ant clean jar-src", I get a BUILD FAILED with this error:
$ant jar-src
Buildfile: build.xml
init:
jar-src:
BUILD FAILED
C:\Users\shaie\Desktop\lucene-3.5.0-RC2\src\common-build.xml:752: The
following error occurred while executing this line:
C:\Users\shaie\Desktop\lucene-3.5.0-RC2\src\common-build.xml:434: The
following error occurred while executing this line:
C:\Users\shaie\Desktop\lucene-3.5.0-RC2\src\common-build.xml:377: Failed to
write C:\Users\shaie\Desktop\lucene-3.5.0-RC2\src\build\MANIFEST.MF
Total time: 1 second
I actually received it with previous releases as well, and always forgot to
fix it. If I manually create 'build', then it's fine. I don't think it
warrants a re-spin, because there's an easy workaround, but that's another
thing that we could decide whether it's critical or not for accepting an RC.
Shai
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Chris Hostetter
<ho...@fucit.org> wrote:
>
> So I'm ammending my vote of RC2 to a -1.
>
the link is already working again. So i guess RC2 fixed itself.
--
lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Shai Erera <se...@gmail.com>.
I ran my usual tests for RC2 and all pass, so +1 to release.
As for what's been said in this thread, I personally don't think that
javadoc errors such as reported should hold a release. But I think that it
will be good if we can define some criteria for accepting an RC.
For example, we can decide that running "ant test", or "ant all" on the
source release ends with "BUILD SUCCESSFUL". Or we can decide that only
"ant test". "ant jar" and "ant jar-src" end with BUILD SUCCESSFUL. Or
whatever, as long as it's clear to everyone what is a MUST for a release.
Perhaps it's already there, I don't know.
BTW, if I run "ant clean jar-src", I get a BUILD FAILED with this error:
$ant jar-src
Buildfile: build.xml
init:
jar-src:
BUILD FAILED
C:\Users\shaie\Desktop\lucene-3.5.0-RC2\src\common-build.xml:752: The
following error occurred while executing this line:
C:\Users\shaie\Desktop\lucene-3.5.0-RC2\src\common-build.xml:434: The
following error occurred while executing this line:
C:\Users\shaie\Desktop\lucene-3.5.0-RC2\src\common-build.xml:377: Failed to
write C:\Users\shaie\Desktop\lucene-3.5.0-RC2\src\build\MANIFEST.MF
Total time: 1 second
I actually received it with previous releases as well, and always forgot to
fix it. If I manually create 'build', then it's fine. I don't think it
warrants a re-spin, because there's an easy workaround, but that's another
thing that we could decide whether it's critical or not for accepting an RC.
Shai
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Chris Hostetter
> <ho...@fucit.org> wrote:
> >
> > So I'm ammending my vote of RC2 to a -1.
> >
>
> the link is already working again. So i guess RC2 fixed itself.
>
> --
> lucidimagination.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@googlemail.com>.
here is my +1
everything passes for me
Test Lucene...
test basics...
http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.5.0-RC2-rev1204988/lucene/
0.1 MB
check changes HTML...
http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.5.0-RC2-rev1204988/lucene/changes-3.5.0/
download lucene-3.5.0-src.tgz...
37.7 MB
verify md5/sha1 digests
verify sig
verify trust
download lucene-3.5.0.tgz...
42.4 MB
verify md5/sha1 digests
verify sig
verify trust
download lucene-3.5.0.zip...
55.3 MB
verify md5/sha1 digests
verify sig
verify trust
unpack lucene-3.5.0.tgz...
test demo...
got 7512 hits for query "lucene"
unpack lucene-3.5.0.zip...
test demo...
got 7512 hits for query "lucene"
unpack lucene-3.5.0-src.tgz...
run tests w/ Java 5...
test demo...
got 241 hits for query "lucene"
generate javadocs w/ Java 5...
Test Solr...
test basics...
http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.5.0-RC2-rev1204988/solr/
0.1 MB
download apache-solr-3.5.0-src.tgz...
96.0 MB
verify md5/sha1 digests
verify sig
verify trust
download apache-solr-3.5.0.tgz...
75.0 MB
verify md5/sha1 digests
verify sig
verify trust
download apache-solr-3.5.0.zip...
79.1 MB
verify md5/sha1 digests
verify sig
verify trust
unpack apache-solr-3.5.0.tgz...
unpack apache-solr-3.5.0.zip...
unpack apache-solr-3.5.0-src.tgz...
run tests w/ Java 6...
generate javadocs w/ Java 6...
run tests w/ Java 7...
generate javadocs w/ Java 7...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Chris Hostetter
<ho...@fucit.org> wrote:
>
> So I'm ammending my vote of RC2 to a -1.
>
the link is already working again. So i guess RC2 fixed itself.
--
lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>.
: Thats oracle's problem (not ours).
I would argue that if we release packages that fail to build
cleanly because our build system:
a) is explicitly configured to try and build linkages against a URL that
404s (which causes javadoc to issue a warning)
b) is explicitly configured to fail on any javadoc warnings
..then that is our problem. (particularly since we don't do anything to
document / encourage users to override the broken URL if they try to build
from source)
: can use -Djavadoc.link. But we cannot enforce this: they might not be
: using an oracle jvm, nor can we ship with the javadocs from oracle (as
: the license.html that comes in the docs package does not look
: compatible with apache to me)
Agreed -- we shouldn't / can't ship a package-list from Oracle, but we
should change the hardcoded javadoc.link value in common-build.xml to ""
(ie: the empty string) ... that causes the build to succeed completely --
if users want happy/shiny/pretty links to java.lang.* classes then they
can override -- but they shouldn't have to dig through the build.xml just
to figure out how to get a basic build to work cleanly.
And FWIW: I was mistaken in my last email when i said "ant javadocs" built
all the javadocs correctly and then failed because of the warning -- i
failed to notice that only the "All" version of thes docs were building,
and then the build was immediately failure (before it recursed and did the
individual contribs and the test-framework) ... and since the test
framework is not included in the "All" copy of the javadocs, that means
src users don't get any copy of those javadocs at all.
So I'm ammending my vote of RC2 to a -1.
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Chris Hostetter
<ho...@fucit.org> wrote:
>
> : http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.5.0-RC2-rev1204988/
>
> +0
>
> Two things jumped out at me as being bad, but i'm not certain if either
> warrant a re-spin...
>
> 1) in the src builds, attempts at building javadocs result in an ant
> failure because of a warning that it couldn't get the java1.5 package list
> from the oracle.com URL. I thought we'd switched this to using a local
> copy, but i guess i'm remembering wrong -- either way i'm not sure why the
> 3x jenkins build isn't failing non-stop (unless this is a really recent
> change on oracles site). NOTE: the javadocs do build (w/o links for
> java.* classes) but the ant task fails because of the warning.
Thats oracle's problem (not ours).
The reason it doesn't fail in hudson is that I downloaded the javadocs
to hudson so that when oracles servers flake out, it doesn't spam our
list. But if users want to use this method too, good for them, they
can use -Djavadoc.link. But we cannot enforce this: they might not be
using an oracle jvm, nor can we ship with the javadocs from oracle (as
the license.html that comes in the docs package does not look
compatible with apache to me)
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/nightly/hudson-settings.sh
# locations of javadocs used by the build
JAVADOC_HOME_15=/usr/local/share/doc/jdk1.5/api
JAVADOC_HOME_16=/usr/local/share/doc/jdk1.6/api
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/nightly/hudson-lusolr-tests-3.x.sh
# verify lucene core javadocs have no warnings w/ Java 1.5
cd $WORKSPACE/$CORE_DIR
JAVA_HOME=$JAVA_HOME_15 $ANT_HOME/bin/ant \
-Djavadoc.link=$JAVADOC_HOME_15 \
javadocs-all javadocs-test-framework
>
> 2) if you build lucene or solr from source, the version in the artifact
> names are "3.5-SNAPSHOT" ... last time i checked, a release named "3.5"
> would have it's build.xml such that building from source w/o explicitly
> setting the version props would result in "3.6-SNAPSHOT" (or
> "3.5.1-SNAPSHOT") so it looks like perhaps we forgot to update the version
> on the branch before the release? ... either that or maybe there was a
> discussion about deliberately changing this that i just didn't notice?
>
3.5-SNAPSHOT is correct, at least this is the way it has been for
every previous 3.x release... (well previously it was -dev)
This way its clear that the user is creating an unofficial 3.x build
--
lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>.
: http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.5.0-RC2-rev1204988/
+0
Two things jumped out at me as being bad, but i'm not certain if either
warrant a re-spin...
1) in the src builds, attempts at building javadocs result in an ant
failure because of a warning that it couldn't get the java1.5 package list
from the oracle.com URL. I thought we'd switched this to using a local
copy, but i guess i'm remembering wrong -- either way i'm not sure why the
3x jenkins build isn't failing non-stop (unless this is a really recent
change on oracles site). NOTE: the javadocs do build (w/o links for
java.* classes) but the ant task fails because of the warning.
2) if you build lucene or solr from source, the version in the artifact
names are "3.5-SNAPSHOT" ... last time i checked, a release named "3.5"
would have it's build.xml such that building from source w/o explicitly
setting the version props would result in "3.6-SNAPSHOT" (or
"3.5.1-SNAPSHOT") so it looks like perhaps we forgot to update the version
on the branch before the release? ... either that or maybe there was a
discussion about deliberately changing this that i just didn't notice?
--- TEST NOTES BELOW --
NOTE: I only tested the TGZ Artifacts...
apache-solr-3.5.0-src.tgz
* MD5 checked clean: 8846bcd57e4fcef28360704b99d3f639
* SHA1 checked clean: bfe4ecf0baff0eea7882da3b848537bfc2b994d7
* lucene and solr CHANGES.txt looked sane
* "ant test" passed
* "cd solr && ant example" build cleanly
* "cd solr && ant javadocs" failed because of a warning that the oracle
1.5 javadoc URL no longer works -- not sure why the 3x jenkins build
isn't failing constantly.
* local solr tutorial and local solr examples work fine
* built solr javadocs worked fine (except for links to java core classes)
* "cd lucene && ant javadocs" had same issues as solr javadocs but
likewise read fine.
* noticed that the artifacts build from source were labeled
"3.5-SNAPSHOT" ... shouldn't they be 3.6-SNAPSHOT or 3.5.1-SNAPSHOT?
apache-solr-3.5.0.tgz
* MD5 checked clean: b7be2fc190b26377ced5ae6055ed43e2
* SHA1 checked clean: 020fc86dfd2405212c0f706111d8576dbb8e54b4
* CHANGES.txt looked sane
* solr tutorial and javadocs looked good
* solr example ran fine
lucene-3.5.0.tgz
* MD5 checked clean: e42d356a7cbf45f44a2187bb3d460cc3
* SHA1 checked clean: d5dc544cdd0b645eb0d6a79e33686a574f3e0e86
* javadocs look good
* CHANGES.txt looked sane
lucene-3.5.0-src.tgz
* MD5 checked clean: ccbaf8ddd8915a3e9d8e7d657717cca2
* SHA1 checked clean: 06969f57ad93f31e173419b6991d117b5f111624
* CHANGES.txt looked sane
* "ant test" passed
* "ant javadocs" had same issues as mentioned above but likewise read
fine.
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Simon Willnauer
<si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Please vote to release the RC2 artifacts at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.5.0-RC2-rev1204988/
>
> as Lucene 3.5.0 and Solr 3.5.0.
>
> Simon Willnauer
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
+1
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Simon Willnauer
<si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Please vote to release the RC2 artifacts at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.5.0-RC2-rev1204988/
>
> as Lucene 3.5.0 and Solr 3.5.0.
>
> Simon Willnauer
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
+1
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Simon Willnauer
<si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Please vote to release the RC2 artifacts at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.5.0-RC2-rev1204988/
>
> as Lucene 3.5.0 and Solr 3.5.0.
>
> Simon Willnauer
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@googlemail.com>.
This vote has passed I taged the release, updated hudson scripts and
published the release artifacts.
I will announce & update the website once all mirrors got the release.
thanks,
simon
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
> On Nov 22, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
>
> Please vote to release the RC2 artifacts at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.5.0-RC2-rev1204988/
>
> as Lucene 3.5.0 and Solr 3.5.0.
>
> Simon Willnauer
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
+1
On Nov 22, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
> Please vote to release the RC2 artifacts at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.5.0-RC2-rev1204988/
>
> as Lucene 3.5.0 and Solr 3.5.0.
>
> Simon Willnauer
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.5.0, RC2
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@gmail.com>.
+1
My basic Solr testing worked fine.
Erik
On Nov 22, 2011, at 11:43 , Simon Willnauer wrote:
> Please vote to release the RC2 artifacts at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonw/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.5.0-RC2-rev1204988/
>
> as Lucene 3.5.0 and Solr 3.5.0.
>
> Simon Willnauer
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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