All right, I will ask my co-worker to supply the patch+test (he is the guy
that found it)
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> +1 to make this warning clear and fix the default to use the accurate
> cache.
>
> Mike McCandless
>
>
+1 to make this warning clear and fix the default to use the accurate cache.
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Rob Audenaerde
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We bumped into a hash collision in the LruTaxonomyWriterCache, which
>
Sounds like it's worth a JIRA to me. While not at all familiar with
that class, I suspect that changing the signature at this point would
break back-compat, so perhaps create a new c'tor and deprecate the old
one if you decide to change the arg?
I'll defer of course to people who know the
Hi all,
We bumped into a hash collision in the LruTaxonomyWriterCache, which caused
a wrong facet to be indexed for a document. (It took some time to figure
out what was going wrong..)
The javadoc of this constructor is not explicitly telling it is unsafe (you
need to check the enum itself to