On Sat, 1 May 2004, Lachlan Andrew wrote: > My vote is that we release 3.2.0b6 basically as the code stands now, > and then start 3.3.0a1 by back-porting features to 3.1.6. For each, > we'll measure the impact on performance, and decide which ones are > worth it. > > Thoughts?
If it is decided that development on the 3.2 branch is to be more or less abandoned, I would suggest that we consider backporting only those pieces that are most key to improving the usefulness of 3.1, which I believe to a large extent consists of providing support for phrase searching and perhaps addressing 32-bit limits imposed on database size. This of course assumes that it is even feasible to do this without ripping the existing code to shreds. If it is possible, I would suggest leaving the resulting version on the 3.1 branch and then taking a step back and putting a lot of thought into where to head with any 3.3 branch. Perhaps take a look at other projects that could benefit future development (e.g. lucene and its derivatives), other sorts of packaging (e.g. libraries, search engine server), and what in general is happening these days with regard to search products and technology. Jim ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click _______________________________________________ ht://Dig Developer mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List information (subscribe/unsubscribe, etc.) https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev
