You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> on 2006/12/12 04:27:49 UTC
branches and flexible indexing
I propose, once I am done w/ some documentation housekeeping, to
begin work on http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-662
(Nicolas' patch to incorporate flexible indexing to Lucene) I think
this is best pursued by branching from trunk at the point I begin and
pursuing the work on the branch, so that I can commit any updates for
others to view w/o having to constantly apply patches.
Anyone have any objections to this approach? I don't know if we have
any (unwritten) policy on branching, so I thought I would check here
first. I know I will have some extra work to keep it up to date w/
trunk, but since I think this may be a fairly in-depth change with
several iterations (I haven't looked at the patch yet, so my
apologies, Nicolas, if it is exactly what we want w/ nothing extra
required) I think the branch will help facilitate reviews, etc.
-Grant
--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
Center for Natural Language Processing
http://www.cnlp.org
Read the Lucene Java FAQ at http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-lucene/
LuceneFAQ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: branches and flexible indexing
Posted by Nicolas Lalevée <ni...@anyware-tech.com>.
Le Mardi 12 Décembre 2006 18:10, Doug Cutting a écrit :
> Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> > I propose, once I am done w/ some documentation housekeeping, to begin
> > work on http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-662 (Nicolas' patch
> > to incorporate flexible indexing to Lucene) I think this is best
> > pursued by branching from trunk at the point I begin and pursuing the
> > work on the branch, so that I can commit any updates for others to view
> > w/o having to constantly apply patches.
> >
> > Anyone have any objections to this approach?
>
> Branches make sense when there are several committers involved. For a
> single developer, revising a patch is adequate: the developer's
> workspace is effectively a branch. On the other hand, when there are
> several committers actively altering different parts of a source tree,
> but with interdependencies, then a patch is no longer feasable and a
> branch may be warranted.
>
> It's not clear to me that LUCENE-662 yet deserves a branch. If you
> alone extend Nicolas' work, then a branch is not required. If you and
> Nicolas are going back-and-forth, each extending the other's work, even
> then, a branch would not help, since Nicolas is not a committer.
>
> So I'd vote to wait until patch-based development of this becomes
> awkward before branching. If several committers want to contribute to
> this patch, and their changes are difficult to integrate, then we should
> consider a branch.
I would also add that the patch I proposed is API and index-format compatible,
this is not a patch that go forward a refactoring of the index format.
Nicolas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: branches and flexible indexing
Posted by Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org>.
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> I propose, once I am done w/ some documentation housekeeping, to begin
> work on http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-662 (Nicolas' patch
> to incorporate flexible indexing to Lucene) I think this is best
> pursued by branching from trunk at the point I begin and pursuing the
> work on the branch, so that I can commit any updates for others to view
> w/o having to constantly apply patches.
>
> Anyone have any objections to this approach?
Branches make sense when there are several committers involved. For a
single developer, revising a patch is adequate: the developer's
workspace is effectively a branch. On the other hand, when there are
several committers actively altering different parts of a source tree,
but with interdependencies, then a patch is no longer feasable and a
branch may be warranted.
It's not clear to me that LUCENE-662 yet deserves a branch. If you
alone extend Nicolas' work, then a branch is not required. If you and
Nicolas are going back-and-forth, each extending the other's work, even
then, a branch would not help, since Nicolas is not a committer.
So I'd vote to wait until patch-based development of this becomes
awkward before branching. If several committers want to contribute to
this patch, and their changes are difficult to integrate, then we should
consider a branch.
Doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org