[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6279?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-6279: --------------------------------------- Attachment: LUCENE-6279.patch OK I think I found a nice low-risk change, so we don't rely on File.exists to decide when to write the .si for a 3.x segment: I just inserted an additional check, that we see this marker file name in our si.files() already, and if it's not there, we always write it. > 3.x -> 4.x .si upgrade should not be tricked by leftover upgrade marker file > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-6279 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6279 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Michael McCandless > Assignee: Michael McCandless > Fix For: 4.10.x > > Attachments: LUCENE-6279.patch, LUCENE-6279.patch > > > Today when you do the first IW.commit to a 3.x index from Lucene 4.x, we go > through a per-segment upgrade process when writing the next segments_N > file, writing .si files for each segment if we didn't already do so. > However, this process can be fooled by a leftover _N_upgraded.si > file, in case the app above Lucene wasn't careful and reused a > directory that had leftover files... I think we can make this more > robust. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org