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 testing that needs to be done to ensure that this is enough to address the corruption?
Regarding a fix for the JVM SIGSEGV crash, how far are we from a fix that protects Lucene from it? Should we wait for that to be included in 9.9.1? Asking because the corruption above looks like it needs to be addressed rather quickly. It would be great to include both, but I don't know how long that delays 9.9.1. Cheers Luca On Sat, Dec 9, 2023 at 11:13 AM Chris Hegarty <christopher.hega...@elastic.co.invalid> wrote: > 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 <christopher.hega...@elastic.co> > 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 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/apache/lucene/issues/12898 - JVM SIGSEGV crash > when compiling computeCommonPrefixLengthAndBuildHistogram Lucene 9.9.0 > > > > There is still a little investigation and work left to bring these > issues to a point where we’re comfortable with proposing a solution. I > would be hopeful that we’ll get there by early next week. If so, then a > Lucene 9.9.1 release can be proposed. > > > > Thanks, > > -Chris. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
