lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <>
Subject Re: [Vote] Apache Lucene.Net 4.8.0-beta00001
Date Tue, 09 May 2017 09:33:49 GMT
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


Itamar Syn-Hershko
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Elasticsearch Partner
Microsoft MVP | Lucene.NET PMC | @synhershko <>

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Shad Storhaug <>

> 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:
> 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 []
> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 11:01 AM
> To:
> 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

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message