> On 12 Aug 2020, at 07:06, Ishan Chattopadhyaya <[email protected]> > wrote: >
> > Whatever we do or not do is imperfect. I hope some "mandate" doesn't stop > > progress. > > We don't go changing code just for the heck of it; we do it for a variety > > of matters. > > We sometimes do: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12845 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12845>. This is just silly … I didn’t make this change just for the heck of it, we’ve had long discussions on Slack about this, so let’s stop being facetious, it doesn’t help. I am sorry it resulted in a regression, the scale of which wasn’t apparent in my manual tests, nor in unit tests. > I don't want to stop progress, but I want to avoid situations where someone > commits an issue (e.g. SOLR-12845), it causes a massive regression > (SOLR-14665), and others have to come and fix the situation > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14706 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14706> and releases) with very > little help or support from the original committer. Just because there was no > mandate in place, hours and hours of effort has already been wasted on that > issue, let aside the users who are suffering as well. To clarify, immediately after the problem was identified I volunteered to fix the problem and do a release a week later after our conversation. The reason for the delay was that I was away and in no position to immediately test the fix and do a release. In the meantime Houston volunteered to do it instead. Anyone interested can check the facts in Slack archives. So let’s not suggest I was uncooperative just for the heck of it, or because I didn’t care, ok? — Andrzej Białecki
