[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3607?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13158813#comment-13158813
]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-3607:
--------------------------------------
bq. Wait, does Solr replication really rely on the IR.getVersion being seeded
with a timestamp?
IIRC, it's used somewhere.
bq. Does it somehow compare IR.getVersion across different indices?
"Different" is rather subjective. Someone can blow away an index and recreate
the same logical index (even though it's a different index from Lucene's POV).
bq. I think we should seed with 0 instead
I think we should keep the current behavior. It has some nice properties, and
isn't broken. Index versions increase over time (unless you delete and
recreate an index in less than a millisecond).
bq. I don't think we should make any promises about how IR.getVersion compares
across unrelated indices, only within the same index.
Not making any promises is different than purposely breaking it for no gain.
> 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]
