[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5952?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14135396#comment-14135396
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-5952:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
We can change that for 4.11, but as Robert suggested to release 4.11 as 5.0
(after copy branch and merge some more stuff in), I wrote "5.0".
{quote}
Which i thought would be a nice compromise: giving us a java 8 trunk, but
delaying it till 6.x, clearing out trunk from all the crazy back compat,
FINALLY dropping 3.x support in the stable branch (5.x), and giving users a 5.0
release with lots of features, but keeping controversial stuff in 6.x for more
time to bake.
Too bad not even one person replied, so i have no idea what we are doing
currently.
> Give Version parsing exceptions more descriptive error messages
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-5952
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5952
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 4.10
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 4.10.1, 4.11, 5.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-5952.patch, LUCENE-5952.patch, LUCENE-5952.patch
>
>
> As discussed on the dev list, it's spooky how Version.java tries to fully
> parse the incoming version string ... and then throw exceptions that lack
> details about what invalid value it received, which file contained the
> invalid value, etc.
> It also seems too low level to be checking versions (e.g. is not future proof
> for when 4.10 is passed a 5.x index by accident), and seems redundant with
> the codec headers we already have for checking versions?
> Should we just go back to lenient parsing?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
