[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10288?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15926400#comment-15926400
]
Shawn Heisey commented on SOLR-10288:
-------------------------------------
bq. I only cheer from the sidelines for the GUI stuff
That's me too. :)
If the duplication is because of new/old UIs, then IMHO it should not have been
duplicated. If the new UI required new locations, then the old UI could be
updated with those locations, and we could have a note somewhere indicating
what can be deleted when the old UI is removed.
The difference in the download from this housekeeping would probably only be a
few hundred kilobytes, but if everybody feels it's OK to increase the download
by a few hundred KB when they build a new feature, the download size might get
up to 150MB before you know it. Oh, wait...
> Javascript housekeeping in UI
> -----------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-10288
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10288
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Components: Admin UI
> Affects Versions: 6.4.2
> Reporter: Shawn Heisey
> Priority: Minor
>
> I noticed a couple of things about the javascript files included in Solr for
> the Admin UI:
> * There is unnecessary duplication between the "js" and "libs" directories.
> * Some of the files are not minified, and for some of those that are, the
> non-minified originals are still included in the binary release.
> Removing the duplicates entirely and the non-minified files from the binary
> release would shave a little bit of size off of the binary download.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
