FYI - I added the next bugfix version 9.9.1 to `branch_9_9`, in preparation for
the upcoming bug fix release.
https://github.com/apache/lucene/commit/1617c0b3a5624adba6e7b380dfeb7fb89b8a2feb
-Chris.
> On 9 Dec 2023, at 09:09, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We’ve encounter two very serious
I believe your assessment that it is "only" a read problem is correct. I
can see how using the "corruption" wording may have caused confusion. It is
a severe bug though that affects multi term queries and I thought it's a
good idea to patch that, given that folks have reproduced it and found the
ro
I don't understand use of the word corruption, isn't it just a bug in
intersect() that only affects wildcards etc? e.g. its not gonna merge
into new segments or impact written data in any way.
And i don't think we should rushout some bugfix release without any
test for this?
On Sat, Dec 9, 2023 a
Based on the discussions in https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/12895 ,
it seems like reverting the change that caused the corruption on read is
the quickest fix, so that we can speed up releasing 9.9.1. I opened a PR
for that: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12899. Is there additional
te
Oh, and I’m happy to be Release Manager for 9.9.1 (given my recent experience
on 9.9.0)
-Chris.
> On 9 Dec 2023, at 09:09, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We’ve encounter two very serious issues with the recent Lucene 9.9.0 release,
> both of which (even if taken by themselves) would warran
Hi,
We’ve encounter two very serious issues with the recent Lucene 9.9.0 release,
both of which (even if taken by themselves) would warrant a 9.9.1. The issues
are:
1. https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/12895 - Corruption read on term
dictionaries in Lucene 9.9
2. https://github.com/apac
