On Tuesday, October 15, 2002, at 01:37 PM, Neal Richter wrote:
> 2. The mifluz devel list is near death, and it doesn't look like > anyone > is actually using mifluz, or furthering development. Fine, but that simply does not mean that prior releases were not made with active users, developers or testing. There has been much more significant testing (on my part included) on the mifluz framework than the remainder of the ht://Dig codebase. > Can you say that it has had as much as the average HtDig release? > HtDig > is MUCH more active then mifluz has ever been. In terms of testing by the developers, component-level testing suites and testing before releases--the answer is pretty much yes. Granted, the mifluz releases between 0.14 (currently in 3.2.0b4) and 0.23 have not necessarily received the same pounding as thousands of ht://Dig users. But the users who were active with mifluz poured gigabytes of data through it too. Remember also that we *are* mifluz. Take a look at the copyright designations. > 4. How certain are we that these changes are going to make 3.2beta5 > MORE stable than the current beta? I'm certain. I put a lot of testing into the mifluz code and it's definitely more stable now than it was. > 5. The current mifluz code merge has problems with constructors and > destructors in a library (libhtdig) setting. I would rather help No offense, but your argument applies here. Why should libhtdig be a feature criteria for 3.2.0b4? > 6. It has performance problems. These seem like they're locking issues--it seems like the database is being locked and unlocked way too much. When we're indexing, it seems like the database should be locked in place as much as possible and then unlocked at the end. > My experience with the current snapshots is very positive. I've had few > problems and the indexing it self is pretty solid, especially with the > new > zlib WordDB compression. Sorry to sound dubious, but speaking of large code merges, you haven't submitted patches for me to merge into 3.2.0b4 either. As of yet, I haven't tested your zlib WordDB compression or seen if it has performance problems relative to 3.2.0b4. Can I claim that your code has seen as much user-level testing as 3.2.0b4 snapshots? I'm somewhat trying to play devil's advocate here. My gut feeling is that the mifluz merge should be aimed towards a 3.2.0b5 release and we *should* get 3.2.0b4 out the door as stable as possible in the near-term. But I'm pretty sure that merging in the new mifluz code is an overall win. -Geoff ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: viaVerio will pay you up to $1,000 for every account that you consolidate with us. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4749864;7604308;v? http://www.viaverio.com/consolidator/osdn.cfm _______________________________________________ htdig-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev
