> IANASD (I am not a SWORD developer!), but, it is usually easier on the > person checking and commiting changes from patches if the solution to > issue, or each additional enhancement, is provided as a separate > independent patch. That way, if there are any doubts or concerns about > one part of the set of patches, the "good stuff" can still be easily > applied, leaving the rest for further study or fixup.
Yes, the idea was more to just show what changes might be needed and get some feedback. It wasn't intended to be a patch (or patches) to apply directly to trunk. >> Issue 2: search causes segfault when searching for stop words >> Resolution: set analyzer stop words to NULL for both index >> creation and search. Possibly this would only have to be set for >> search, and left on to lower the index size. > > The "possibly" worries me a bit :) Do we need to test with and without > the stopwords at index creation time, and see how much index size is > affected? Have you already done any testing along those lines? I really don't think that these words would add very much to the size of the module. But I didn't think of leaving it off the index creation until I was writing the email, so I haven't tested yet :) It would be worth trying out to see if it made a difference in size. >> In addition, this patch adds fields for footnotes, morphology, and >> headers. I *really* would like to see this added to the default >> indexing. ... > >> ... nor was I entirely comfortable with the code I had written, ... > > Sounds like a "needs further study" idea, to me? Like I said, I wasn't really aiming for a clean patch, just wanted some feedback before doing any more work on it. > I'm about to create a new SWORD 1.6.0+dfsg-2 package with USBINARY > defined (so we can handle encrypted modules -- quite a regression to > break those, and almost certainly my fault -- oops!). I'll look at > adding in your fixes for Issues 1 and 3, and the search-time part of > your fix for issue 2, and see what I think about the result... I'm not > going to even look at the "adds fields" part, which is an enhancement > ratehr than a straight bug fix, until we get some feedback from the real > SWORD developers on that :) Sounds good. Matthew _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
