Hi Lachlan - Based on your response, I guess I am not clear on exactly what you were suggesting originally. It sounded like you wanted feedback on the idea of creating a 3.3 branch that was 3.1.6 + back-ports. Were you excluding phrase search from the candidate back-ports? I would argue that phrase search is probably the most important missing feature in the 3.1.6 branch and unless it is to be added I am not sure that I see the value of a new branch or the investment of significant effort aimed at enhancing 3.1.6.
If adding some level of proximity search to 3.1.6 is considered too disruptive and 3.2 is leading down the wrong path, both of which seem at least somewhat likely at this point, then my suggestion would be to pick up some of the easy wins with a 3.1.7 and give thought to a 3.3 branch that does not start out overly constrained by any existing code base. Hopefully some of the people with better knowledge of the current code's features and limitations can chime in at some point. Jim On Sat, 8 May 2004, Lachlan Andrew wrote: > Greetings Jim, > > Thanks for your reply. Your comments about 3.3 are very sensible. > > The big problem with back-porting phrase searching is that this is > exactly the one that requires the new database structure, which is > what is giving us the headaches... > > The reason I got involved with ht://Dig was so that KDE could search > its docbook/xml help pages. That needs the MIME handling code and/or > external transports which don't have two slashes (like help:/foo). > Porting these to 3.1 would not cause the headaches that changing the > database structure entails. I'm sure there are other examples of > "light" features that could be back-ported without major dramas. > > Cheers, > Lachlan > > On Sun, 2 May 2004 06:55 pm, Jim wrote: > > 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. > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ht://Dig developer DownUnder (http://www.htdig.org) > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver higher performing products faster, at low TCO. http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3 _______________________________________________ ht://Dig Developer mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List information (subscribe/unsubscribe, etc.) https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev
