Chris Mattmann wrote:
Hi Doug and Andrzej,
+1. I think that workflow makes a lot of sense. Currently users in the
nutch-developers group can close and resolve issues. In the Hadoop workflow,
would this continue to be the case?
+1
Regards,
Uros
Cheers,
Chris
On 8/30/06 3:14 PM,
I'm thinking I should file issues on the following-
1. The scoring bug. Not sure what to file here, since such things are hard
to pin down. But defining an inversion as
score(hostname/(index|default|home).(html|jsp|asp|cfm|etc))
score(hostname)
on a ~2.5Mdoc database, where I have about
Hello,
I see many plugins named lib- which are wrappers around
other non-plugin .jar files.
For example, analysis-de plugin uses lib-lucene-analyzers plugin,
which in turn reference to the jar file that contains GermanAnalyzer.
What is the reason for this indirection? The plugins called
by
Chris Mattmann wrote:
+1. I think that workflow makes a lot of sense. Currently users in the
nutch-developers group can close and resolve issues. In the Hadoop workflow,
would this continue to be the case?
In Hadoop, most developers can resolve but not close. Only members of a
separate
Another alternative would be to construct a new workflow that just
adds the Patch Available status and still permits issues to be re-
opened.
+1
Hi Doug,
But the nutch-developers Jira group pretty closely corresponds to
Nutch's committers, so perhaps all committers should be permitted to
close, although this should be exercised with caution, only at releases,
since closes cannot be undone in this workflow.
Another alternative
