> Thank you, and thank you Erick. I am a bit surprised that uploading a patch > is the preferred way, at least by you two. But I guess most committers have > scripts in place to ease download/diff/apply?
A patch is a diff file. I just look at it directly (from Jira). In most cases there's enough context to figure out what a change does (or how a given think is implemented). I guess for most people there's a level of trust that the person submitting a patch will run precommit/ tests and the feedback is about less trivial things (such as logical issues or higher-order problems). > I really like the GitHub pull-request-mechanism, but as I am the one asking > for review of my code (in this case at least), I will of course use the > method with the highest chance of getting a review. I like it too, but I don't use it for Lucene development. And I don't think it's that much better than a udiff (a patch file). But things will vary depending whom you ask. This is part of why open source is attractive to many -- it's very liberal. (Linus T. may disagree here :). > Related to that I am unsure about Affect/Fix versions in JIRA. The SOLR-11240 > issue is present in Solr 5+, so I just picked the latest released minor > version for 5 & 6 + master. Was that correct? This is a can of worms we touched just recently... search the mailing list and see for yourself. David Smiley (and others) suggested a workflow, but I don't think it's been hard-locked and agreed upon by all the devs. It seems like a sensible proposal though. Dawid --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
