Hi, > 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.
I am not against, but I would not respin because of that unless there is some other issue. > but what about other possible Lucene bugs that fsync the wrong file? Who cares? If the file exists, all is fine. If not, a 0-byte artifact is created. Again, this is not a serious bug. It existed since the early beginning of Lucene, no need to fix it today for a branch that’s outdated soon! ----- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael McCandless [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 7:58 PM > To: Lucene/Solr dev > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Lucene/Solr 4.7.2 > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
