msokolov commented on code in PR #14019:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/14019#discussion_r1864959587
##########
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/IndexWriter.java:
##########
@@ -101,8 +101,8 @@
* whether a new index is created, or whether an existing index is opened.
Note that you can open an
* index with {@link OpenMode#CREATE} even while readers are using the index.
The old readers will
* continue to search the "point in time" snapshot they had opened, and won't
see the newly created
- * index until they re-open. If {@link OpenMode#CREATE_OR_APPEND} is used
IndexWriter will create a
- * new index if there is not already an index at the provided path and
otherwise open the existing
+ * index until they re-open. If {@link OpenMode#CREATE_OR_APPEND} is used,
IndexWriter will create a
Review Comment:
Again, not a great sentence, but fixing it requires a bigger rewrite; I
don't think that this change is better (the "will" has no subject).
##########
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/IndexOptions.java:
##########
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ public enum IndexOptions {
DOCS,
/**
* Only documents and term frequencies are indexed: positions are omitted.
This enables normal
- * scoring, except Phrase and other positional queries will throw an
exception.
+ * scoring, except phrase and other positional queries will throw an
exception.
Review Comment:
I think I would prefer to avoid this ambiiguity by using `PhraseQuery`
explicitly
##########
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/IndexCommit.java:
##########
@@ -25,9 +25,9 @@
* Expert: represents a single commit into an index as seen by the {@link
IndexDeletionPolicy} or
* {@link IndexReader}.
*
- * <p>Changes to the content of an index are made visible only after the
writer who made that change
- * commits by writing a new segments file (<code>segments_N</code>). This
point in time, when the
- * action of writing of a new segments file to the directory is completed, is
an index commit.
+ * <p>Changes to the content of an index are made visible only after the
writer which made that
Review Comment:
sorry this is wrong. We could use `that`, but `who` is also correct - no
need to "fix" it,
##########
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/IndexWriter.java:
##########
@@ -123,13 +123,13 @@
* IndexWriterConfig#setRAMBufferSizeMB}) or the number of added documents
(see {@link
* IndexWriterConfig#setMaxBufferedDocs(int)}). The default is to flush when
RAM usage hits {@link
* IndexWriterConfig#DEFAULT_RAM_BUFFER_SIZE_MB} MB. For best indexing speed
you should flush by RAM
- * usage with a large RAM buffer. In contrast to the other flush options {@link
- * IndexWriterConfig#setRAMBufferSizeMB} and {@link
IndexWriterConfig#setMaxBufferedDocs(int)},
+ * usage with a large RAM buffer. In contrast to the other flush options, in
case of {@link
Review Comment:
let's leave this as it was. It was OK.
##########
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/IndexCommit.java:
##########
@@ -25,9 +25,9 @@
* Expert: represents a single commit into an index as seen by the {@link
IndexDeletionPolicy} or
* {@link IndexReader}.
*
- * <p>Changes to the content of an index are made visible only after the
writer who made that change
- * commits by writing a new segments file (<code>segments_N</code>). This
point in time, when the
- * action of writing of a new segments file to the directory is completed, is
an index commit.
+ * <p>Changes to the content of an index are made visible only after the
writer which made that
+ * change commits by writing a new segments file (<code>segments_N</code>).
This point in time, when
Review Comment:
OK this sentence is awkward, but what you've done here doesn't really
address the core problem. I think it really would be most correct as: "_The_
point in time (no comma) when ... is completed (no comma) is an index commit".
##########
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/DocumentsWriterPerThreadPool.java:
##########
@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ List<DocumentsWriterPerThread>
filterAndLock(Predicate<DocumentsWriterPerThread>
/**
* Removes the given DWPT from the pool unless it's already been removed
before.
*
- * @return <code>true</code> iff the given DWPT has been removed. Otherwise
<code>false</code>
+ * @return <code>true</code>, iff the given DWPT has been removed. Otherwise
<code>false</code>
Review Comment:
also, the comma you inserted is not correct (try replacing iff with "if and
only if" - we wouldn't use a comma before "if").
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
