bq. Try a merge back: This would let flex appear as a single commit to
trunk, so the history of trunk would be preserved.
+1 for that - I think the history of trunk is important to preserve.
And there is also a way to ask for flex's history so everybody win?
Shai
On Thursday, April 1, 2010, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote:
Hi,
we should think about how to merge the changes to trunk. I can try this out
during the weekend, to merge back the changes to trunk, but this can be very
hard. So we have the following options:
Try a merge back: This would let flex appear as a single commit to trunk, so
the history of trunk would be preserved. If somebody wants to see the changes
in the flex branch, he could ask for them (e.g. in TortoiseSVN there is a
checkbox Include merged revisions). If this is not easy or fails, we can do
the following:
- Create a big diff between current trunk and flex (after flex is merged up
to trunk). Attach this patch to an issue and let everybody review. After that
we can apply the patch to trunk. This would result in the same behavior for
trunk, no changes lost, but all changes in flex cannot be reviewed.
- Delete current trunk and svn move the branch to trunk (after flex is merged
up to trunk): This would make the history of flex the current history. The
drawback: You losse latest trunk changes since the split of flex. Instead you
will only see the merge messages. Therefore we should see this only as a last
chance.
Comments?
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
-Original Message-
From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:35 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Landing the flex branch
I think the time has finally come! Pending one issue (LUCENE-2354 --
Uwe), I think flex is ready to land I think the other issues with
Fix
Version = Flex Branch can be moved to 3.1 after we land.
We still use the pre-flex APIs in a number of places... I think this
is actually good (so we continue to test the back-compat emulation
layer). With time we can cut them over.
After flex, there are a number of fun things to explore. EG, we need
to make attributes work well with codecs indexing/searching (with
Multi/DirReader, serailize/unserialize, etc.); we need a BytesRef +
packed ints FieldCache StringIndex variant which should use much less
RAM in certain cases; we should build a fast core PForDelta codec;
more queries can cutover to operating directly on byte[] terms, etc.
But these can all come with time...
Thoughts/issues/objections?
Mike
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
