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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 6:03 PM To: [email protected] 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 <[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 > > >
