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 12:08:19 GMT
I have verified the fix and merged it to master. I have some errands to do while it is running
all of the tests but I will be back later this evening put together the release, start the
beta00002 vote, and push the beta00001 assets.

BTW - should we organize each release version into its own folder (https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/lucenenet/)?
I noticed that 3.0.3 wasn't done this way as some other projects have.

-----Original Message-----
From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Itamar
Syn-Hershko
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 6:55 PM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001

Alright, let's do this then

--

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 2:21 PM, Shad Storhaug <shad@shadstorhaug.com> wrote:

> 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