On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Simon Willnauer
<[email protected]> wrote:
> hey folks,
>
> now that we have everything under codec control and norms are cut over
> to docvalues I wonder what keeps us from moving towards a 4.0 beta
> release.

here are my thoughts:

But just taking that issue (not to try to pick on it): this is a
little incomplete for a few reasons:
1. Shouldn't we remove the limitation that norms are single byte? I
started looking at this and it reveals some hair I think and creates
some interesting questions.
2. Shouldn't docvalues have a a simpletext implementation? I know the
api is a little simpler now, but previously there was no way I could
have written a simpletext implementation if my life depended on it.
3. There were some API todos listed on the issue: I think those TODOs
are important (like all the extra add methods and lucene-40 private
bulk shit in the abstract api). These are new APIs so I think we
should try to tackle these.

Otherwise, as before we still have to figure out how modules are being
packaged, and we still have to review other apis and in general do a
lot of testing and refactoring and bugfixing.

>From the tests/bugfixing perspective, on trunk its not hard to dig
into stuff here and there and find lots of really horrible bugs that
exist in trunk-only. This is a sign that our tests are not good enough
and that the code is not stable enough.

For apis perspective: all the apis really need some serious reviewing:
if anything is abstract it needs multiple implementations (even ones
in src/test). Lots of the javadoc is outdated, even in trunk itself
and needs to be cleaned up. The MIGRATE.txt and CHANGES.txt needs to
be reviewed and up to date. We have to deal with things like
fileformats.html. I'm just going to quit typing now because this email
will just keep getting longer and longer.

-- 
lucidimagination.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to