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. W
: 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 generous
> 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
: 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 fo
+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
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 kee
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, Grant
On Aug 29, 2009, at 3:38 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Bill Au 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=rev&revision=809010
You should add a note to CHANGES.txt.
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Bill Au 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=rev&revision=809010
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
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 wrote:
> On Fri, 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?
>
> I'm in the pro
On Fri, 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?
I'm in the process of doing so.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
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
