On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, >> However, I think we should back-port LUCENE-5570 to 4.7.2, especially given >> that 4.7.2 is the last release Java 1.6 users can use, I do think it's >> important to >> fix bugs there. >> >> Uwe, are you very strongly against fixing that issue on 4.7.2? > > I am -0 here. This issue just makes debugging harder, but causes no bugs or > data corrumption, so we should not add stuff that cannot be solved natively > with Java 6. LUCENE-5574 is the real issue, LUCENE-5570 was just confusing to > those who tried to understand the bug. But as the bug is fixed, no need to > fix the side-effect of 0 byte files.
Wait, are you -0 or -1? If you are just -0, i.e. you will not veto Robert's patch to backport to 4.7.2, then I'd like to commit that. The problem is, this "creates 0 byte file instead of throwing FNFE/NSFE" bug can mask other (future) Lucene bugs; yes, we fixed LUCENE-5574, but what about other possible Lucene bugs that fsync the wrong file? Hopefully there are none, but if there are, it's much better to see an exception than silently create 0-byte files which later manifest as index corruption looking like your filesystem ate the file not Lucene. I agree it'd be great if we could do the same change everywhere, but because 4.7.x is Java 1.6, we can't, and I think the lesser evil is a slightly different patch (Robert's patch) than just not fixing the bug at all. Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
