On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: > Hi, >> However, I think we should back-port LUCENE-5570 to 4.7.2, especially given >> that 4.7.2 is the last release Java 1.6 users can use, I do think it's >> important to >> fix bugs there. >> >> Uwe, are you very strongly against fixing that issue on 4.7.2? > > I am -0 here. This issue just makes debugging harder, but causes no bugs or > data corrumption, so we should not add stuff that cannot be solved natively > with Java 6. LUCENE-5574 is the real issue, LUCENE-5570 was just confusing to > those who tried to understand the bug. But as the bug is fixed, no need to > fix the side-effect of 0 byte files. >
Personally I disagree with this synopsis: the leniency makes it difficult to catch bugs of this nature. Had fsync() simply thrown exception instead of creating new zero byte files, Simon and I would maybe have a lot less grey hairs So to me doing a best effort check for java6 has real value, compared to just doing nothing at all. But I'm happy to release without this and at least fix the corruption bug and make progress forwards. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
