: I think, if you give it the same name, it just grays out the old ones. See
: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-550 for an example.
:
: Thus, I prefer #3, but am fine with #2 as well. #3 makes it easier, IMO, to
: find the latest.
use the same name if the patch serves the same purp
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, 11 March, 2008 4:47:16 PM
Subject: Re: Ideas to refactor Filed
I think, if you give it the same name, it just grays out the old
ones. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-550 for an
example..
Thus, I prefer #3,
I think, if you give it the same name, it just grays out the old
ones. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-550 for an
example.
Thus, I prefer #3, but am fine with #2 as well. #3 makes it easier,
IMO, to find the latest.
-Grant
On Mar 11, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Michael McCandle
I like #2.
I don't think we should delete/replace attachments in Jira. The
history can be useful.
Mike
eks dev wrote:
Michael, others
what is Lucene/Jira best practice for new versions of the same patch:
1. delete existing / add new patch wit the same name
2. add new patch with some fu
Michael, others
what is Lucene/Jira best practice for new versions of the same patch:
1. delete existing / add new patch wit the same name
2. add new patch with some funky version e.g. "Jira-1219-take3.patch"
3. just add new patch with the same name
?
tip with extra checks is good, deprecate even better, I will update patch
- Original Message
From: Michael McCandless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, 11 March, 2008 2:45:56 PM
Subject: Re: Ideas to refactor Filed
Hello!
Responses below:
e
Hello!
Responses below:
eks dev wrote:
Moin Moin Michael,
for the first issue I have crated LUCENE-1217, and for the second
one I have some questions.
if we maintain length and offset internally in Field than we have
one, imo, theoretical "legacy performance problem" as we need to
crea
From: Michael McCandless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, 5 March, 2008 10:09:26 AM
Subject: Re: Ideas to refactor Filed
Good morning!
eks dev wrote:
> I have noticed the two potential enhancements in Field, and I am
> not sure if I read it c
Good morning!
eks dev wrote:
I have noticed the two potential enhancements in Field, and I am
not sure if I read it correctly, so better to ask before crating
Jira issue :)
1.. Field uses two methods to determine type of fieldsData,
sometimes with boolean isBinary; and sometimes with in
I have noticed the two potential enhancements in Field, and I am not sure if I
read it correctly, so better to ask before crating Jira issue :)
1.. Field uses two methods to determine type of fieldsData, sometimes with
boolean isBinary; and sometimes with instanceof byt[]
The proposal is to redu
10 matches
Mail list logo
