magibney commented on pull request #129: URL: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/129#issuecomment-857928192
I'm talking about preserving existing behavior for `sow=false` (the behavior that you -- and I, in fact -- are considering "incorrect" in principle). For better or worse, anyone who's currently using this config (if there is any such user) is using it with the current anomalous behavior of StrField and `sow=false`); so fixing this, even _if_ it's the "correct" thing to do, is likely to break any such configs "in the wild". In any event I think my postscript pseudocode-analysis-config probably obviates concern about there being no migration path to support existing behavior. >As a user (my personal idea) ... Understood! I don't require convincing that this is a problem, in principle. My personal expectation would be the same as yours, fwiw. All I'm suggesting (in considering a practical path forward) is to play the devil's advocate by sympathetically considering the alternate perspective; what use cases will be _broken_ by this change? I'm not even necessarily suggesting to _avoid_ breaking those use cases, but simply to be aware of them and proceed with caution, weighing the inertia of existing configs, and the oddness of configuring StrField `qf` under any circumstances. I think either behavior is achievable under either implementation; so the question is whether the current behavior is objectively wrong enough to warrant a breaking change. -- 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. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@solr.apache.org
