lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001
Date Tue, 09 May 2017 11:54:35 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message