gerlowskija commented on PR #4258: URL: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/4258#issuecomment-4198843746
> No matter how broken, the flag for it was there and some people thought it worked What flag? There was never a feature-flag around this. And what people thought this worked? The optimization was never documented, and flies against all of the advice we **do** have in our docs around maintaining the required disk overhead. Users would need to remember a 10 year old JIRA discussion to even have a hint that Solr attempted anything like this. Are you sure your comment above went to the right PR @dsmiley ? I have added a changelog entry for now, but if anything the experience has me leaning even more towards "no changelog". I've left it in case someone can word-smith a version that makes more sense. But otherwise it just feels awkward and contrived to have a changelog entry of "Removed thing that was both broken and undocumented". -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
