[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5850?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14079248#comment-14079248
 ] 

Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-5850:
-------------------------------------

We do agree on that. We also need to simplify it though. Having multiple ways 
to compare versions (e.g. Version.compare vs StringHelper.versionComparator) 
etc is really bad. 

I think its equally bad to "downgrade" 4.8.1 to 4.8 because we have two apis 
(versus having one unified enum api). Its still buggy if you do the wrong 
thing, so if previous mistakes are repeated again, like the ones that motivated 
this issue, it will still be equally buggy, just buggy in a different way.

> Constants#LUCENE_MAIN_VERSION can have broken values 
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-5850
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5850
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: general/build
>    Affects Versions: 4.3.1, 4.5.1
>            Reporter: Simon Willnauer
>             Fix For: 5.0, 4.10
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-5850.patch, LUCENE-5850.patch, 
> LUCENE-5850_bomb.patch, LUCENE-5850_smoketester.patch
>
>
> Constants#LUCENE_MAIN_VERSION is set to the Lucene Main version and should 
> not contain minor versions. Well this is at least what I thought and to my 
> knowledge what the comments say too. Yet in for instance 4.3.1 and 4.5.1 we 
> broke this such that the version from SegmentsInfo can not be parsed with 
> Version#parseLeniently. IMO we should really add an assertion that this 
> constant doesn't throw an error and / or make the smoketester catch this. to 
> me this is actually a index BWC break. Note that 4.8.1 doesn't have this 
> problem...



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to