On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Steven A Rowe <sar...@syr.edu> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > On 4/24/2009 at 4:45 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Steven A Rowe <sar...@syr.edu> wrote: >> > - Five issues (LUCENE-1186, 1452, 1453, 1465 and 1544) are mentioned >> > in both the 2.4.1 section and in the Trunk section. AFAICT, it has >> > not been standard practice to mention bug fixes on a major or minor >> > release (which Trunk will become) if they are mentioned on a prior >> > patch release. >> >> Hmm -- I thought it'd be good to be clear on which bugs were fixed, >> where, even if it causes some redundancy? > > Right: SUM(+1 clarity, -0.5 redundancy) = +0.5 :)
OK ;) > So the policy you're suggesting is: "When backporting bug fixes from trunk to > a patch version, make note of the change in both the trunk and patch version > sections of CHANGES.txt", right? > > Makes sense (though as I noted, this policy has never before been used) Hmmm. > , but why then did you include only 5 out of the 15 bug fixes listed under > 2.4.1 in the Trunk section? Yeah good point... let me better describe what I've been doing, and then we can separately decide if it's good or not! For tiny bug fixes, eg say LUCENE-1429 or LUCENE-1474, I often don't include a CHANGES entry in trunk, because I want to keep the "signal to noise ratio" higher at that point for eventual users upgrading to the next major release. But then when I backport anything to a point release, I try very hard to include an entry in CHANGES for every little change, on the thinking that people considering a point release upgrade really want to know every single change (to properly assess risk/benefit). When I release a point release, I then carry forward its entry back to the trunk's CHANGES, and so then we see some issues listed only in 2.4.1, which is bad since it could make people think they were in fact not fixed on trunk. So what to do? Maybe even tiny bug fixes should always be called out on trunk's CHANGES. Or, maybe a tiny bug fix that also gets backported to a point release, must then be called out in both places? I think I prefer the 2nd. >> Can you make a patch for <code><pre>...</pre></code>? (I like that >> approach). I agree let's not make it generic to all HTML tags for >> now... > > Done: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1610 Excellent -- I just committed this, thanks! Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
