This seems fine to me, assuming no objections from others.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 4:30 PM Alessandro Benedetti
wrote:
>
> What about including this as well in 9.1.1 :
> https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/1255 ?
> It's an annoying neural search bug, and it's pretty much done, just waiting
> for
What about including this as well in 9.1.1 :
https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/1255 ?
It's an annoying neural search bug, and it's pretty much done, just waiting
for a few checks and then I'll merge it with the changes!
--
*Alessandro Benedetti*
Director @ Sease Ltd.
True; I have no strong preference. Sometimes we only need one side of the
boolean.
~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 1:26 PM Jason Gerlowski
wrote:
> +1 to "with" over "set" where it makes sense.
>
> > Arguably,
+1 to "with" over "set" where it makes sense.
> Arguably, a pair of methods "sendUpdatesInParallel()" and
"sendUpdatesSerially()" would read more naturally.
It definitely "reads" more naturally. Though it's worth pointing out the
(potential) downside of this approach for boolean options: using
