On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Yonik Seeley > <yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > >>> To be clear, I'm asking that Yonik revert his commit from yesterday >>> (rev 1103444), where he added "text_nwd" fieldType and dynamic fields >>> *_nwd to the example schema.xml. >> >> So... your position is that until the "text" fieldType is changed to >> support non-whitespace-delimited languages better, that >> no other fieldType should be changed/added to better support >> non-whitespace-delimited languages? > > No, that's not my position at all. > > My position is: please don't suddenly commit changes, with "your way", > while we're still discussing how to solve the issue. That's not the > Apache way.
Dude... everyone has always agreed we need more fieldtypes to support different languages (as you did earlier in this thread too). There's been a history of just adding stuff like that (half of the commits to the example schema have no associated JIRA issue). What happens to the default "text" field will have no bearing on that. We will still need more field types to support more languages. Would you be against me adding a text_cjk fieldtype too? My position: it's silly for a lack of consensus on the "text" field to block progesss on any other fieldtype. -Yonik
