[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1255?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12592909#action_12592909
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1255:
--------------------------------------------
Hmm, you're right.
OK so I guess we should revert it entirely, on 2.4 & 2.3.2, and continue to
accept -1 position in the index? It doesn't seem to cause any real harm,
except CheckIndex was [incorrectly] flagging it as corruption, and, Luke was
also unhappy with it.
> CheckIndex should allow term position = -1
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1255
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1255
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Index
> Affects Versions: 2.4
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.3.2, 2.4
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1255.patch, LUCENE-1255.take2.patch
>
>
> Spinoff from this discussion:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-user/200803.mbox/[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> Right now CheckIndex claims the index is corrupt if you index a Token with -1
> position, which happens if your first token has positionIncrementGap set to 0.
> But, as far as I can tell, Lucene doesn't "mind" when this happens.
> So I plan to fix CheckIndex to allow this case. I'll backport to 2.3.2 as
> well.
> LUCENE-1253 is one example where Lucene's core analyzers could do this.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
