> The changelog has the names. Repeating it in the release announcement mail
> feels redundant to me.
Being redundant in this case is not a problem. The DRY principle applies to
code, not expressions of gratitude.
Names are included to honor and thank the people who have helped. The point is
> The context of the name appearing as I propose in a "thank you" is
> merely to thank them, not to indirectly hold them to stability/quality
> measures.
I heartily endorse listing everyone who did something on a release.
It drives me crazy every time there is a release of GCC that ends with
> We can set it up as a recurrent meeting, inviting all the committers as
> optional (but also open to contributors that want to join?)
I'm not a committer, but I'd be interested as well.
I would think we'd want it as inclusive as possible. In other projects, I've
seen similar ideas get
> I do think that the docs filterCache refguide [1] could be updated to
> be more explicit about all the possible cases that use the
> filterCache, and I'd be happy to help with that.
Thanks, I appreciate it. If you would, please make yourself a watcher on the
ticket I started for the task:
> On Nov 17, 2022, at 12:56 PM, Mikhail Khludnev wrote:
>
> Overall, FacetComponent explicitly requires docset
>
> I don't recommend changing anything in this flow.
And if that's how it should be, that's fine.
We just need to add notes about this in the docs for filterCache. I'll be doing
> I think it likely means that the intended benefit of filterCache, which is
> the caching of fqs, is not happening because those cache entries will be
> evicted almost as soon as they are created.
Yes, that's what I suspect is happening.
Another problem with having q in the filterCache is
> It seems reasonable to me. To count facets Solr needs docsets of results
> for in-order processing.
> I suppose, SimpleFacets code can be amended so it keeps the result docset
> out of filter cache, but would it get significant gain?
Mostly I think this is about expectations, and perhaps this
I've been working on tuning my filter cache, and have discovered that doing a
search with facet=on results in an entry in the filter cache for the q
parameter. This makes no sense to me. Is this intentional?
In my app, there are only a couple of dozen possible FQs that can get passed to
Solr.
> +1 to what Christine said, and thanks for volunteering to take it off
> my list Andy. If you do push up a PR and no one jumps on it, feel
> free to plug it here and I'll definitely take a look.
I will start digging into this.
My big concern is I don’t know what to do as far as testing. Last
> After a bit more digging, I suspect more strongly that this is dead
> code. I'm going to put it on my backlog, but it may take me a while
> to get to. If anyone comes to this thread late and knows definitively
> one way or another, feel free to chime in!
I don’t know one way or the other,
10 matches
Mail list logo
