: think thats important. It just seems the Changes log should read what
: changed from 1.3 or else its a little confusing. You could make another
: argument with so many on trunk - but in my mind, the only thing those
: going from 1.3 to 1.4 should need to worry about is upgraded to 2.9 -
: not
but that update doesn't need to be purely additive, it can be an
edit of an existing item in which case diffing the two versions of
CHANGES.txt will still tell you what you need to know.
Thats how we have been attempting to handle it in Lucene -
update the previous issue with credits and merge
: Thats how we have been attempting to handle it in Lucene -
: update the previous issue with credits and merge the change
: info. There are tricky situations - someone can get credit for
: a huge issue when they just found a minor bug much later -
: but that seems to fit in line with our
Depends on if changes supports trunk or releases I guess. I think it's
dangerous to start down that line with trunk myself. It's one of the
caveats trunk users endure - I don't consider them when I make changes
in a dev cycle. It's the same way I'm not leaving deprecated methods
for them.
On Aug 29, 2009, at 3:38 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Bill Aubill.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Yonik,
Are you in the process of trying it out or upgrading Solr, or
both?
Bill
It's done: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=809010
You should add a note
I keep sending emails from the wrong account: attempt 2:
I think it's kind of weird how we add an entry every update - IMO it
should be one entry- upgraded to Lucene 2.9. That's going to be the
only change.
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com (mobile)
On Sep 4, 2009, at 12:03 PM,
It's very useful to know the rev # in a place that doesn't require: 1)
starting up Solr, 2) unpacking the Lucene jar, but yeah, we could just
have one entry at the top or something that just lists what the
current version and rev # are.
On Sep 4, 2009, at 2:41 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
I
+1 - I'm not against knowing what the last rev upgraded to was - I also
think thats important. It just seems the Changes log should read what
changed from 1.3 or else its a little confusing. You could make another
argument with so many on trunk - but in my mind, the only thing those
going from 1.3
Yonik, Are you in the process of trying it out or upgrading Solr, or
both?
Bill
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.comwrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Grant Ingersollgsing...@apache.org
wrote:
Anyone tried out the new Lucene RC2 in Solr yet
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Bill Aubill.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Yonik,
Are you in the process of trying it out or upgrading Solr, or both?
Bill
It's done: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=809010
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
Anyone tried out the new Lucene RC2 in Solr yet? Should we upgrade to
it?
have not tried it yet but we should certainly upgrade.
the more testing the better!
On Aug 28, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Anyone tried out the new Lucene RC2 in Solr yet? Should we upgrade
to it?
12 matches
Mail list logo
