Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 7699 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2009 19:31:50 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 25 Nov 2009 19:31:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 5083 invoked by uid 500); 25 Nov 2009 19:31:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 4980 invoked by uid 500); 25 Nov 2009 19:31:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 4972 invoked by uid 99); 25 Nov 2009 19:31:49 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:31:49 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.211.185] (HELO mail-yw0-f185.google.com) (209.85.211.185) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:31:41 +0000 Received: by ywh15 with SMTP id 15so27381ywh.5 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:31:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.95.10 with SMTP id x10mr4772248ybl.38.1259177478783; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:31:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <359a92830911251001o573d59cfie22cfaf3ace3c0e1@mail.gmail.com> References: <1450923845.1250989154859.JavaMail.jira@brutus> <1829560948.1259167779624.JavaMail.jira@brutus> <359a92830911251001o573d59cfie22cfaf3ace3c0e1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:31:18 -0500 Message-ID: <9ac0c6aa0911251131r4d56fab2jab739030b65a113@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1844) Speed up junit tests From: Michael McCandless To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: > They're ready to go, but at Uwe's suggestion, I've been waiting for 3.0 to > get settled before prompting someone to apply this patch. I was going to > generate a new patch for this and for 2037 (junit4 tests) just to make sure > they were easy to apply. But if you're willing, the patches are already > attached to the JIRA issues. Do note that the decision in > MinBooleanShouldMatch to stop checking the query after 100 rather than > checking all 1,000 is included in the patch.... Uwe do you still think we should wait? 3.0.0 looks like it's "out"? > Do you want to apply the patches or should I regenerate? It's no big deal to > regenerate them and I'll have a better feel for reconciling any conflicts. I > don't know whether there even *are* any conflicts, but just in case.... Let's hold up until we hear from Uwe... > For my info, though, if I have a more recent patch that *replaces* an > earlier patch, especially one that hasn't yet been applied, is it preferred > to delete the earlier patch when providing a new one? Actually in general I prefer people not delete the old patches... This way if there's a question/confusion we can always go back & compare old to new. Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org