[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10912?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16381324#comment-16381324
 ] 

Steve Rowe commented on SOLR-10912:
-----------------------------------

bq. If there's not an entry in CHANGES.txt that mentions the issue number 
(either the lucene or solr file as appropriate), that should be a -1.

I think -0 is warranted, but not -1; some committers' workflows order CHANGES 
additions after the initial commits, and non-committers rarely include CHANGES 
entries (maybe partly because committers have to change it, minimally to 
include their name).

bq. How about a -1 if a SOLR patch makes changes to lucene, or vice versa? If 
there is an entry in the appropriate CHANGES.txt file for the issue, turn that 
into a -0. That way, we have better assurance that if a commit for one part of 
the project requires changes to the other part, there will be a release note.

Some issues require changes in both places.  Is there some issue you're trying 
to address besides release noting both projects?  I ask because Solr users 
really need to pay attention to Lucene CHANGES regardless.

> Adding automatic patch validation
> ---------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-10912
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10912
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) 
>          Components: Build
>            Reporter: Mano Kovacs
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: SOLR-10912.ok-patch-in-core.patch, 
> SOLR-10912.sample-patch.patch, SOLR-10912.solj-contrib-facet-error.patch
>
>
> Proposing introduction of automated patch validation, similar what Hadoop or 
> other Apache projects are using (see link). This would ensure that every 
> patch passes a certain set of criterions before getting approved. It would 
> save time for developer (faster feedback loop), save time for committers 
> (less step to do manually), and would increase quality.
> Hadoop is currently using Apache Yetus to run validations, which seems to be 
> a good direction to start. This jira could be the board of discussing the 
> preferred solution.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to