lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Muir (Commented) (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3607) Lucene Index files can not be reproduced faithfully (due to timestamps embedded)
Date Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:19:40 GMT


Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-3607:

If you really want to have a fully reproducable index (and not knowing the parameters of what
that means, 
and not understanding what the use case here is doesn't help) it seems like you need to do
a lot more work?

What if we want to put something in the diagnostics map in the future to assist with debugging?
its already going to change
dependent upon your JVM and os settings (e.g. diagnostics = {os.version=3.0.0-12-generic,
os=Linux, lucene.version=4.0-SNAPSHOT, source=flush, os.arch=amd64, java.version=1.7.0_01,
java.vendor=Oracle Corporation}), and thats just one example.

To me thats totally fair game for us to do, if it helps debugging. So I dont think we should
commit ourselves
to this faithful reproduction.

if you really really really are against this at the end of the day, in trunk you can implement
your own 
segments file reader/writer in a codec, and write 0 for version and no diagnostics maps and
other things...

> Lucene Index files can not be reproduced faithfully (due to timestamps embedded)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-3607
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: core/index
>    Affects Versions: 2.9.1
>         Environment: Eclipse 3.7
>            Reporter: Martin Oberhuber
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Eclipse 3.7 uses Lucene 2.9.1 for indexing online help content. A pre-generated help
index can be shipped together with online content. As per
>    [[ ]]
> it turns out that the help index can not be faithfully reproduced during a build, because
there are timestamps embedded in the index files, and the "NameCounter" field in segments_2
contains different contents on every build.
> Not being able to faithfully reproduce the index from identical source bits undermines
trust in the index (and software delivery) being correct.
> I'm wondering whether this is a known issue and/or has been addressed in a newer Lucene
version already ?

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message