[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2665?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12914988#action_12914988
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2665:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}
bq. In fact I'm +1 on switching Lucene's trunk to CTR model instead
We have always been CTR - but how fast we commit w/o feedback from others is a
function of our confidence level (i.e. how much we think people would
agree/disagree with the change if they did review it, taking in other things
like the complexity / invasiveness of the change).
I'm not sure we should change the way we currently do things - trunk is
developing plenty fast!
{quote}
Ahh you're right -- RTC would require full vote on every commit:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ReviewThenCommit
So we are in fact CTR!
> Rework FieldCache to be more flexible/general
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2665
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2665
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Search
> Reporter: Ryan McKinley
> Attachments: LUCENE-2665-FieldCacheOverhaul.patch,
> LUCENE-2665-FieldCacheOverhaul.patch
>
>
> The existing FieldCache implementation is very rigid and does not allow much
> flexibility. In trying to implement simple features, it points to much
> larger structural problems.
> This patch aims to take a fresh approach to how we work with the FieldCache.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
