[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3607?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13158860#comment-13158860
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-3607:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
That's a requirement in many safety critical areas.
{quote}
Keep in mind this is a search engine library, the whole concept is based on
heuristics.
Honestly if someone wants to use lucene for something 'safety critical', I
think this
timestamp field should be at the bottom of their priority list. But see below:
{quote}
I'd like to assert that there is tangible gain in an index that's binary
reproducable.
I'd rather claim that I don't see the advantage of an index that has the
timestamp of its creation embedded.
{quote}
Well I don't think there is a big need to change the default here, and I also
don't
think we need to find any consensus or one-size-fits-all here, we have a
flexible
indexing api in 4.0 so that you can customize things like this.
> 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]
