> Worst case scenerio: if it starts out as a SOLR issue and then the scope > gets bigger, creating a new LUCENE issue to track it (and linking the two) > seems trivial to me.
Thanks hoss for expressing what i tried to do :) That all makes perfect sense! simon On 8/19/10, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote: > >> : Form me it does not matter, but when I open new issues, I do it against >> : the project where the “bug” is visible. If there is also code committed >> : to Solr, but the main task is Lucene this is fine. >> >> Right ... i think it's handy to still have the "SOLR" bug queue for people >> >> to file bugs against Solr, if they wind up requiring fixes further down >> the tree then so be it. > > +1 > >> >> : Personally, i don't waste any time thinking about whether the issue is >> : SOLR or LUCENE, and I think two JIRAs is actually confusing. >> >> If you know from the outset when you create an issue (ie: tracking an >> improvement, or a new feature) that it requires updating "the whole tree" >> then it should definitely be a LUCENE issue. even if you aren't sure it >> makes sense to start using LUCENE, but having SOLR arround for Solr users >> to file bugs is handy. > > This is what I did for LUCENE-2608. > >> >> Worst case scenerio: if it starts out as a SOLR issue and then the scope >> gets bigger, creating a new LUCENE issue to track it (and linking the two) >> >> seems trivial to me. >> >> As far as refrencing LUCENE-* issues directly in Solr's CHANGES.txt -- >> sure, why not? > > Again, I did. > > -Grant > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
