I rolled back the mp_alloc changes, and the Mac OS X people reported no problems.
I just got back from vacation and will make every effort to redo the memory leak fixes. I am using both Insure++ (commercial) and Valgrind (open source). As for the URL/TODO, no one really responded with outstanding tasks. I'd vote for (2) below. (1) will destroy the normalization of scores. Thanks! On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Lachlan Andrew wrote: > Greetings Neal, > > Thanks for your work in pushing 3.2 out. What is the URL of the ToDo > list? As an alternative, you could modify the STATUS file in CVS, > which is the basis of Geoff's weekly posts. > > The only ToDo I would add concerns backlink weights. Below (and at > <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01881.html>) > is my original email from June, and Geoff's reply. The basic problem > is that the score based on a document is (sensibly) divided by the > number of words in a document, but the score for links *to* the > document isn't. Before releasing 3.2, we should either > (1) remove the division by document size or > (2) change the weightings in defaults.cc to balance this. > The potential disadvantage with (2) is breaking compatibility with old > configurations. Opinions? > > Cheers, > Lachlan > > > The base score of documents I search for is typically 0.0001, while > > the backlink factor is typically 2000. Since these are added, the > > weight given to the document itself is approximately zero! > > > >Does anyone know how this came about? > > Well, that makes some sense. We haven't "recalibrated" the scoring, > though we trimmed out the whole "words in the front get higher score" > bit. And since I assumed that somewhere along the 3.2 development, > we'd add in some sort of "proximity weighting," I didn't really worry > about it. > > As far as changing the weightings, I don't think anyone minds as long > as it's explained up-front in release documentation. In particular, > now that you don't have to reindex to change weightings, it's an easy > change to your config file. > > -Geoff > > > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:04, Neal Richter wrote: > > McGill University recently contacted the one of the HtDig Board > > members to inquire about making some kind of financial arrangement > > with HtDig to get 3.2 finished, tested and working with Phrase > > Searching -- ie quoted strings. > > > > Please post your TODO list and I'll compile them and post them on > > a web-page prioritized for release. We can then have a short > > debate and get to work. > > > > My personal opinion is that we limit the TODOs to the absolutely > > necessary (ie satisfy Geoff's weekly status email) and get it > > working and call it 3.2. Everything else is a new release. > > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ht://Dig developer DownUnder (http://www.htdig.org) > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > ht://Dig Developer mailing list: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > List information (subscribe/unsubscribe, etc.) > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev > Neal Richter Knowledgebase Developer RightNow Technologies, Inc. Customer Service for Every Web Site Office: 406-522-1485 ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ ht://Dig Developer mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List information (subscribe/unsubscribe, etc.) https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev
