Xapian locking errors with custom query parser

[Austin Clements]

Quoth Carl Worth on Mar 10 at  6:21 pm:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 21:26:03 -0500, Austin Clements <amdragon at mit.edu> wrote:
> > unlocked.  Here's the fix.  cworth, what's the most convenient way for
> > me to slip this in to the patch series?
> 
> I'd most prefer a rebased branch including the fix, along with an email
> sent to me, (giving either the branch-name to pull or else the actual
> patches via email).
> 
> [I think I answered this in IRC a while ago, but I don't see a later
> email from you on this topic. Do you have a branch that's ready for me?
> Perhaps that's qparser-3 (which looks more likely than qparser or
> qparser-hack)]

Yes, qparser-3 is ready for you, and has this fix folded in to it (see
id:20110202050336.GB28537 at mit.edu).

> *snip*
>
> Some of those are obviously old (search-perf and search-perf-2 obviously
> superceded by search-perf-3). And some are obviously just experiements
> (qparser-hack, search-perf-hack, folder-hack, and qparser-hack).

I'd been migrating towards x-hack for my constantly-rebased
development branches, and x-v1, x-v2, etc, for stable review branches.
In this system, the highest versioned branch would always be the one
to review and branches that weren't ready for review would only have a
-hack branch.  (Of course, it doesn't help that that repository has
branches from before I was doing this and is also a mirror of your
master repository, which mixes in the branches you have there.)

> But the others are less clear. One option is for me to not go looking
> for any branches except in response to specific pull requests. Another
> option would be for people to name branches something like
> for-cworth/qparser-3 once things are ready to go.
> 
> That way, I could do something like:
> 
> 	git remote update
> 	git branch -r | grep for-cworth
> 
> and see what people are proposing.
> 
> What do you think?

Interesting.  I could see this being useful for decluttering
superseded review branches, though that would require renaming
superseded branches, which always causes a mess.

> Of course, I still want to have email so that everyone can follow along
> at home, and it's easy to reply for patch review, etc.
> 
> -Carl