Re: [htdig-dev] Re: Forward porting changes for 3.1.6 to 3.2.0b4

[Gilles D. <gr...@sc...>]

According to Geoff Hutchison:
> > Is the policy to have all possible stemmings, even if they
> > are "non-words", like "unrealises"?  If so, we can really
> > go to town on the affixes :)
> 
> No, and I'd expect that ispell doesn't want them either. Of course many 
> people have moved away from ispell too...

Does that mean we'll end up having to add support for aspell dictionaries
to htfuzzy endings?

> > Is the release still scheduled for 1 December?  I think
> > I've now got almost all of the 3.1.6 functionaliy in,
> > except for the wildcard.
> 
> I haven't heard from much of anyone, which isn't necessarily what I want 
> just before a release. So I think we'll have to prod some people into 
> confirming that the current snapshots are working, bugs have been fixed, 
> etc.
> 
> My guess is that the release will have to move back a small amount, but 
> that's not too surprising. Still, I'd like to get it out before I head 
> to my parents for the holidays.

Sorry for my silence, but things got a bit hectic last week, so I
never did get to committing patches as I hoped.  I also haven't done
much testing of recent snapshots, though I don't expect the tests I run
on my small site contribute a whole lot to the overall testing effort
anyway (how many times does it need to be tested on a small site running
Red Hat?).

I fully expected some schedule slippage, but 4 days to the tentative
release date, I think we'll need to allow for a lot of slippage!

Anyway, for what it's worth, I've made the changes to english.0 and
synonyms, with one minor addition (adding D & S flags to birth).  Thanks,
Lachlan!  Once again, I'll try to get to some of the other changes later
this week, but can't promise anything because things are still rather
busy for me.

> > (I'm not too keen to port all of the documentation over until  
> > defaults.xml  becomes the official reference...)
> 
> I think it seems easy enough to generate the defaults.xml from any 
> changes. So why don't we get the documentation over first. (It seems to 
> me that it'd be easier to patch defaults.cc, then re-generate 
> defaults.xml?)

I agree.  Let's get the doc changes in.  Then, if we can get the xml
stuff in for 3.2.0b5, great, but if not, it's not the end of the world.

-- 
Gilles R. Detillieux              E-mail: <gr...@sc...>
Spinal Cord Research Centre       WWW:    http://www.scrc.umanitoba.ca/
Dept. Physiology, U. of Manitoba  Winnipeg, MB  R3E 3J7  (Canada)