[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3607?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13158808#comment-13158808
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-3607:
--------------------------------------------
bq. What if we want to put something in the diagnostics map in the future to
assist with debugging?
+1
I think we cannot realistically commit to "if you index the same content you
get identical index", with the defaults. Having to create/use a custom codec
to do this seems like a good solution....
bq. I think we should maintain the current behavior (at least Solr depends
somewhat on it in the replication code),
Wait, does Solr replication really rely on the IR.getVersion being seeded with
a timestamp? Does it somehow compare IR.getVersion across different indices?
I think we should seed with 0 instead (all tests pass), ie, the version is
still comparable across IRs opened at different times against the same index.
I don't think we should make any promises about how IR.getVersion compares
across unrelated indices, only within the same index.
> Lucene Index files can not be reproduced faithfully (due to timestamps
> embedded)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3607
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3607
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core/index
> Affects Versions: 2.9.1
> Environment: Eclipse 3.7
> Reporter: Martin Oberhuber
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
>
> Eclipse 3.7 uses Lucene 2.9.1 for indexing online help content. A
> pre-generated help index can be shipped together with online content. As per
> [[https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=364979 ]]
> it turns out that the help index can not be faithfully reproduced during a
> build, because there are timestamps embedded in the index files, and the
> "NameCounter" field in segments_2 contains different contents on every build.
> Not being able to faithfully reproduce the index from identical source bits
> undermines trust in the index (and software delivery) being correct.
> I'm wondering whether this is a known issue and/or has been addressed in a
> newer Lucene version already ?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
