Matthew Talbert wrote:
> However, I recommend that you switch to using the SimpleAnalyzer
> rather than StandardAnalyzer. All that's needed it to replace
> occurrences of standard::StandardAnalyzer to SimpleAnalyzer (no
> namespace needed), and remove all references to stop_words. Based on
> my ex
heya all
I've just read motu release meeting minutes and from that they point
out that a clear bug-fix release from upstream needs a bug in
Launchpad and sponsor (not the big and scary ffe).
So if clear bugs with clear fixes will be crafted into 1.6.0.1 tarball
might work instead of carrying in m
DM Smith wrote:
For a fix that doesn't break backward compatibility. How about
getting the stopword list from the analyzer and checking the query
for those words. If any are found then gracefully fail the query, or
merely delete them and potentially create a bad query, or ...
That prevents the
Matthew Talbert wrote:
I may package 0.9.23 for Windows, but the linux
distros aren't going to move to 0.9.23 until it's regarded as stable.
Indeed. As confirmation: rmadison -s karmic libclucene-dev outputs
libclucene-dev | 0.9.20-3 |karmic | amd64, i386
So that is what will
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:55 PM, DM Smith wrote:
> On 08/31/2009 12:55 PM, Matthew Talbert wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:52 PM, DM Smith wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 08/31/2009 12:42 PM, DM Smith wrote:
>>>
I don't think the solution regarding segfaults on a search of only
stopwo
On 08/31/2009 12:55 PM, Matthew Talbert wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:52 PM, DM Smith wrote:
On 08/31/2009 12:42 PM, DM Smith wrote:
I don't think the solution regarding segfaults on a search of only
stopwords is the right way to solve the problem. The problem is in clucene
or an
> 0.9.23 is "unstable" and is over 13 months old. 0.9.21b is the latest
> stable, and even that dates back to October of last year. Judging
> from the last two commits on their project page, they're in a
> refactoring stage - no idea how long that is expected to last. Since
> 0.9.21b post-dates
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Matthew Talbert wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:52 PM, DM Smith wrote:
>> On 08/31/2009 12:42 PM, DM Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think the solution regarding segfaults on a search of only
>>> stopwords is the right way to solve the problem. The problem is in c
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:52 PM, DM Smith wrote:
> On 08/31/2009 12:42 PM, DM Smith wrote:
>>
>> I don't think the solution regarding segfaults on a search of only
>> stopwords is the right way to solve the problem. The problem is in clucene
>> or an inappropriate use of it. A bug should be entere
On 08/31/2009 12:42 PM, DM Smith wrote:
I don't think the solution regarding segfaults on a search of only
stopwords is the right way to solve the problem. The problem is in
clucene or an inappropriate use of it. A bug should be entered into
the clucene project for it.
The bug has already bee
I don't think the solution regarding segfaults on a search of only
stopwords is the right way to solve the problem. The problem is in
clucene or an inappropriate use of it. A bug should be entered into the
clucene project for it.
I found a related, and now fixed bug, where "a AND b" where "a"
> Since clucene isn't aiming for either UTF-16 OR UTF-32, I don't
> believe you'll be able to. A better approach would be to get the size
> of "content" and set a value based on that.
FWIW, I just did this for both searching and index creating. I
over-allocated the length by 500, which is overkill
> I do appreciate and plan to incorporate Matthew's suggestions into svn
> head. I believe I still may research clucene and see if we can use our
> UTF-16 or 32 conversion routines so we won't need to allocate 1 meg of
> static buffer.
Since clucene isn't aiming for either UTF-16 OR UTF-32, I don
>
> Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
>
> > Quick note: I remember scanning the patch originally sent seeing a
> > 'new' without an obvious delete. Please be sure to check for this.
> > I may be wrong; it was a quick observation.
>
> You could well be right, the stopwords patch
>
> http://crosswire.org/~j
Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> Quick note: I remember scanning the patch originally sent seeing a
> 'new' without an obvious delete. Please be sure to check for this.
> I may be wrong; it was a quick observation.
You could well be right, the stopwords patch
http://crosswire.org/~jmarsden/17_no_st
Quick note: I remember scanning the patch originally sent seeing a 'new'
without an obvious delete. Please be sure to check for this. I may be
wrong; it was a quick observation.
I do appreciate and plan to incorporate Matthew's suggestions into svn
head. I believe I still may research clucene a
16 matches
Mail list logo