https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
--- Comment #15 from m...@blackmans.org ---
We were a bit keen for a fix for this morning (29 Jan), so we went with Jim's
patch in trunk as it looked very conservative (extending tested behaviours to
Unix from Windows). I didn't see your patch a
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
--- Comment #16 from Yann Ylavic ---
(In reply to mark from comment #15)
> Is this later patch either more robust or more
> comprehensive than Jim's? If you're making a strong recommendation, we will
> see about pushing that version out to the
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
--- Comment #17 from Yann Ylavic ---
In any case, if you go with the "Windows" approach for your production, we are
still interested in your testing of attachment 35702 for the future ;)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the ass
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62044
--- Comment #18 from m...@blackmans.org ---
Thanks for the perspective. We were seeing Apache instances fail and not
restart due to the orphaned segments, requiring manual intervention to resolve,
hence our urgency.
However, I see your point no
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62043
William A. Rowe Jr. changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
OS|
