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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko > Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 4:34 PM > To: [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> > 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:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 11:01 AM > > To: [email protected] > > 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 > > >
