On 11/17/06, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: IIUC the agreed way of working is to do all important changes as : patches in Jira, discuss them and only commit once we agree on them? I would rephrase as: "attach to jira, see if any one has comments/objections and commit once they've had a little time to soak."
For changes that a committer feels are obvious or non-contentious (and not likely to be improved by review), I think they should just commit them. We have a review-after-commit policy too. For example, Mike's recent fix of field boosts was an important fix, but simply committing it w/o a JIRA issue was fine IMO. Changes of any nature that are copyrightable (have originality, etc) and come from non-committers should go through JIRA I think (for IP documentation purposes). People should be able to count on the fact that commits without JIRA issues originate from committers only. As far as branches go, I've not used them (because Lucene really hasn't), so I don't have much to go by. I would be concerned about the ability to easily "see" what a patch consists of from a simple link in the JIRA bug though. -Yonik http://incubator.apache.org/solr Solr, the open-source Lucene search server
