lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shad Storhaug <s...@shadstorhaug.com>
Subject RE: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001
Date Tue, 09 May 2017 11:21:48 GMT
Seems that would defeat the purpose :). But since there is a workaround (as crappy as it is)
I think the release notes will suffice to get people through the bug. At least that if they
push to production, they realize they are pushing a pre-release. Once 4.8.0-beta00002 is released,
4.8.0-beta00001 will be unpopular anyway.

-----Original Message-----
From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Itamar
Syn-Hershko
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 6:03 PM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001

Sounds good, except can we not release beta001 to nuget? :)

--

Itamar Syn-Hershko
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Elasticsearch Partner
Microsoft MVP | Lucene.NET PMC
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> http://BigDataBoutique.co.il/

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Shad Storhaug <shad@shadstorhaug.com> wrote:

> Itamar,
>
> Thanks for your input. You make a compelling argument.
>
> Since the vote has passed and 4.8.0-beta00001 is already burnt (it 
> exists in some people's NuGet cache and if we re-use it we can't be 
> sure if they are testing the right copy), let's compromise and do 
> both. Releasing now will do some damage control on the bootleg (which 
> seriously needs to be made clear that it is not official and not 
> production-ready) and ensures we reserve all of our NuGet package IDs. 
> Starting a vote on 4.8.0-beta00002 now will ensure the bug will be fixed within the same
72 hour timeframe.
>
> We should be able to determine by the nature of the bug reports if 
> they are definitely not related to this and be able to fix those. 
> Issues we are unsure about we can ask the users whether they still 
> experience them after upgrading to 4.8.0-beta00002 and close if that patch fixes the
issue(s).
>
> Peter has provided a workaround for the bug, which we can put into the 
> release notes on NuGet.
>
> We can hold off any official announcement until after 4.8.0-beta00002 
> is released.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com] 
> On Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 4:34 PM
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001
>
> This is quite a severe bug, and actually can cause index corruption. 
> It can potentially also crash the application - some tests have been 
> indeed failing with an exception being thrown due to access attempt of 
> non-existing files. It is also probably going to fix quite a handful 
> of those flakey tests (which will take a while to notice). If it 
> wasn't that critical, I would have voted +1. In fact, I will probably 
> cast an automatic
> +1 on the next vote.
>
> Tagging a version as official Beta, and having an announcement around 
> it is bigger than just having the bits around (which we had as a while).
> Releasing a cleaner version will allow us to work on actual real bugs 
> as they will be reported, instead of potentially responding to bug 
> reports on something we know is already fixed even before we released. 
> This is a better way of "collecting information" as you said.
>
> The compilation issues Simon has identified are important to fix (I 
> had some myself) but do not constitute as critical IMO.
>
> We can start another vote now, and like I said 72 hours delay is not a 
> big deal.
>
> --
>
> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> Freelance Developer & Consultant
> Elasticsearch Partner
> Microsoft MVP | Lucene.NET PMC
> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> 
> http://BigDataBoutique.co.il/
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Shad Storhaug <shad@shadstorhaug.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Stefan,
> >
> > > If you run into it, will it make your application crash or will it
> > destroy the index?
> >
> > It causes a crash under highly concurrent scenarios, and will most 
> > likely affect all of the file-system directories. It does not affect 
> > the index, otherwise some of the index tests would have detected it.
> > Peter van Ginkel (the user who discovered it) has been kind enough 
> > to contribute a test that fails most of the time if the concurrency 
> > bug exists, but before this none of our tests have been able to detect it.
> > Peter also has been able to work around this bug, and I have asked 
> > him
> to post the workaround at:
> > https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/205
> >
> > It is a severe bug. Is it our most severe bug? Maybe. Is it severe 
> > enough to destroy our reputation? Being that there is a bootleg copy 
> > out there that is already doing just that (that is versioned as 
> > production-ready and already has this bug), I would say we are 
> > better off releasing with the bug than not. If we didn't have that 
> > issue to contend with, I would agree with Itamar that we should 
> > re-roll the
> release.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 11:01 AM
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001
> >
> > On 2017-05-09, Shad Storhaug wrote:
> >
> > > So technically the vote passes. However, I will give it some more 
> > > time
> > in case anyone else wants to weigh in on whether the issues we have 
> > are significant enough to reset the release. Presscott, Stefan, 
> > Simon,
> WDYT?
> >
> > As you may know I'm not a user of Lucene.Net myself, so take my 
> > opinion with a grain of salt.
> >
> > I'm not sure about the impact of the bug. If you run into it, will 
> > it make your application crash or wil it destroy the index? In the 
> > later case I'd say we should re-roll the release. Otherwise we 
> > should publish the release, fix the bug and plan for a second beta soon.
> >
> > Stefan
> >
>
Mime
View raw message