[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2094?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784023#action_12784023
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-2094:
-------------------------------------
bq. Revert?
Not from me. I don't think its a huge deal, certainly not something that
requires a revert. I just worry some times about the pace of things - and that
the more active one becomes, the more they/we should worry about allowing
proper time for comments/objections when committing. I like how people have
tended to err on the side of waiting for solid consensus myself. Its not a big
issue here - but as we move away from that I think it will be. Its something
that will spread as new users look at old users when determining how they act.
The more heavy committing one does, the easier I think it is to just decide
stuff and cram it in - personally (and I'm just one voice). The more you do, I
think its also more important to allow brief time periods between saying what
you are going to do and doing it (though that should always be done). Its easy
to say, well we can just change it, or pull it out - but with lazy consensus
and how the community works, I think thats conducive to worse code. Its much
easier for someone to debate and have questions than it is to hound changes or
code out of trunk. In my mind its better if the bottleneck is on the going in,
as it has been, rather then shifting things to fixing whats in. Especially if
there is debate in an issue still - whether it belongs there or not - I think
there should be warning and consensus before a commit.
I realize thats a bit of a tough sell based on this little issue alone - but
its a general feeling I've been having as lucene dev has really been ramping up
in recent times. I think its important we stick to being conservative about
waiting for consensus - giving others a chance to voice their opinion - no
matter how sure you are about your decision. I think its an important example
for new users, and an important characteristic of Lucene development.
Thats just me though - I don't speak for anyone but myself.
> Prepare CharArraySet for Unicode 4.0
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2094
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2094
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Analysis
> Affects Versions: 3.0
> Reporter: Simon Willnauer
> Assignee: Uwe Schindler
> Fix For: 3.1
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-2094.patch, LUCENE-2094.patch, LUCENE-2094.patch,
> LUCENE-2094.patch, LUCENE-2094.patch, LUCENE-2094.patch, LUCENE-2094.txt,
> LUCENE-2094.txt, LUCENE-2094.txt
>
>
> CharArraySet does lowercaseing if created with the correspondent flag. This
> causes that String / char[] with uncode 4 chars which are in the set can not
> be retrieved in "ignorecase" mode.
--
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: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
