[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5216?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13822558#comment-13822558
]
Steve Rowe commented on LUCENE-5216:
------------------------------------
bq. Oh, I didn't know we can do that! So I'd do "svn ci -m "LUCENE-123
LUCENE-234: message"? Do they need to be separated by comma or something?
I'm pretty sure there is no required punctuation - AFAIK any svn commit log
message matching regex /PROJECT-\d+/ *anywhere in the log message* gets added
as a comment to the corresponding JIRA issue, and multiple issue mentions
result in comment addition to all of them.
> Fix SegmentInfo.attributes when updates are involved
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-5216
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5216
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/index
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Assignee: Shai Erera
> Fix For: 4.6, 5.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-5216.patch
>
>
> Today, SegmentInfo.attributes are write-once. However, in the presence of
> field updates (see LUCENE-5189 and LUCENE-5215) this creates an issue, in
> which if a Codec decides to alter the attributes when updates are applied,
> they are silently discarded. This is rather a corner case, though one that
> should be addressed.
> There were two solutions to address this:
> # Record SI.attributes in SegmentInfos, so they are written per-commit,
> instead of the .si file.
> # Remove them altogether, as they don't seem to be used anywhere in Lucene
> code today.
> If we remove them, we basically don't take away special capability from
> Codecs, because they can still write the attributes to a separate file, or
> even the file they record the other data in. This will work even with
> updates, as long as Codecs respect the given segmentSuffix.
> If we keep them, I think the simplest solution is to read/write them by
> SegmentInfos. But if we don't see a good use case, I suggest we remove them,
> as it's just extra code to maintain. I think we can even risk a backwards
> break and remove them completely from 4x, though if that's a problem, we can
> deprecate too.
> If anyone sees a good usage for them, or better - already uses them, please
> speak up, so we can make the proper decision.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
