On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Gilles Detillieux wrote: > Sounds like an excellent idea to me. I'm rather surprised they didn't do > that in mifluz already (or is something like this in the newer code?).
OK, so to make this clear, there's a difference between mifluz (which is more backend) and the way we use it. We can set whatever key specification we want to mifluz. So we currently use a key specification like: word // doc id // location // flags Now we should also remember that Loic was essentially the *only* mifluz developer. > I'm kind of being conservative. Based on the total lack of > recent progress in mifluz, the very quite mailing list, and the much > smaller user base I have some worries about just how good the new mifluz > code is. Keep in mind that the version of htword/mifluz we're using is 0.13. I know for *certain* there are bugs in it, and reading the ChangeLog for mifluz, I know they're not just in the compression code. Keep in mind that there are some fairly decent regression tests for mifluz. I don't see inactivity on development as necessarily indicative of stability! (Otherwise, I'd really worry about bugs whenever I use LaTeX.) The problems with the merge were due to differences in the mifluz *interfaces* (and my lack of free time to do the merge) as well as Loic's disappearance. I haven't had to do significant changes to the mifluz code, which does pass regression tests. I performed the merge outside the CVS tree so that we _can_ get testing of reliability. But this is completely distinct about how to handle _our_ key/record implementation. -Geoff ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ htdig-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev
