Tweaks to Solr 10 Major-Changes page ahead of release#4169
Tweaks to Solr 10 Major-Changes page ahead of release#4169anshumg merged 1 commit intoapache:branch_10_0from
Conversation
Mostly these tweaks are all minor cleanups: consistent capitalization of 'SolrJ', slight rearranging or combining of bullet points, adding some removal-notices that were previously missing and that users are likely going to notice (e.g. `zkcli.sh`), proper capitalization of section headers, etc.
github-actions
bot
added
the
documentation
|
One huge question I had in editing this page was: do new features or "additions" belong on this page or not? My initial assumption was "no: it lives in the "Upgrade Notes" section of our ref-guide, and the introductory text at the top of the page seems to scope it very narrowly to the things a user should know in planning/executing an upgrade. But it seems like that's not the case in practice? This page describes a bunch of new features, as are it's predecessors 'major-changes-in-solr-9.adoc', 'major-changes-in-solr-8.adoc', etc. So... If we decide we want to cover new-features on this page, then I think the following blurbs should be added somewhere to represent significant changelog entries that I don't see represented yet:
If on the other hand we decide we don't want new feature additions in this file, it could be trimmed down a huge amount. |
dsmiley
left a comment
dsmiley
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thanks for the cleanup.
Also I recall on a ref guide page somewhere, SOLR_HOST was still being used when in fact SOLR_HOST_ADVERTISE is its replacement. Not sure if you want to increase scope for that.
| * Minimum Java version for Solrj 10.x is Java 17. | ||
| * Minimum Java version for SolrJ 10.x is Java 17. | ||
|
|
||
| * Deprecate CloudSolrClient’s ZooKeeper Hosts constructor. Users are encouraged to supply Solr URLs instead of communicating with ZooKeeper. It’s not likely to be removed before Solr 11. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I discovered this deprecation was accidentally removed (the actual @Deprecated when one of us did a refactoring. Nonetheless I want to keep this notice here, as this is basically notifying users in a different way.
|
Yeah I recall I was an advocate of "major changes in ..." as I've grown so disappointed in a diverse group of people / random contributors to effectively write changelog entries to communicate something of value to readers. I've found the changelog to be high noise, low signal. People write geek-speak and not user-impact. I try to police this where I can but I sense nobody cares when I'm not on duty. Even if all the entries are pretty good... then there's that every contributor would love a changelog entry for what amounts to a refactoring. I love refactorings but I don't want to waste a readers time to tell users about minutia. I still prefer to keep "major changes" covering major changes & upgrade notes. But I confess there's then a kind of extra bruden (or thing to forget) if you do something significant, to doubly-communicate. It's actually in a bunch of places: JIRA, PR description, changelog, commit message, and then maybe the "major changes....adoc". Phew! At least the extra burden is a barrier for the things that are not worty :-) I've been thinking, maybe a more ideal world would be a changelog entry with optional fields for "release notes" & "upgrade notes". Anyway, wishful thinking. CC @janhoy |
|
It's very hard to really think about these types of changes as you are doing development. Is this a big feature or does it turn out to be small? Also, this is a really nice place to use AI. I often take a bunch of docs and just drop it in NOtebookLLM and work with it to get a nice summary. Tweak the tone, ask it to organize, that is what ai does well. The hard part is having the raw material, and our changelogs have really improved that. I suspect that the Release Script of 2027 will spit out "Major Changes Doc" for us. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM overall, but we’ll also need to change the landing page i.e. https://solr.apache.org/guide/solr/10_0/upgrade-notes/solr-upgrade-notes.html
I’ll take that up so feel free to merge this once everyone else is ok with it
|
@dsmiley @gerlowskija - you folks good with merging this ? |
|
Yes, of course
…On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 6:50 PM Anshum Gupta ***@***.***> wrote:
*anshumg* left a comment (apache/solr#4169)
<#4169 (comment)>
@dsmiley <https://github.com/dsmiley> @gerlowskija
<https://github.com/gerlowskija> - you folks good with merging this ?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#4169 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAC4DTZIU7YTRTAXQIWMPWD4OYM23AVCNFSM6AAAAACWCDWCICVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTSOBXGY4TSNZSHE>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Yep - go for it. Just note that the PR is against branch_10_0, and I imagine we'll want it forward-ported to branch_10x and main as well. |
4 participants
Description
Mostly these tweaks are all minor cleanups: consistent capitalization of 'SolrJ', slight rearranging or combining of bullet points, adding some removal-notices that were previously missing and that users are likely going to notice (e.g.
zkcli.sh), proper capitalization of section headers, etc.