I wasn't aware of it either :) I like the idea of keeping it separate, mostly because I fear the core CHANGES.txt growing super big and thus harder for people to use, especially as contrib/ starts growing.
Otis -- Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch ----- Original Message ---- > From: Shalin Shekhar Mangar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 4:27:22 PM > Subject: Re: CHANGES.txt > > On a related note, I can see a CHANGES.txt inside client/java/solrj folder. > However, it has not been updated with many changes that have took place in > Solrj. I wasn't even aware of it's existence until recently. > > Two options: > 1. We merge it with the main changelog file and delete it > 2. We gather all SolrJ changes from the main changelog and put it here > > If we decide to go for the 2nd route, is a separate changelog needed for DIH > as well? > > On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Ryan McKinley wrote: > > > Hello- > > > > Otis pointed out (via direct email) that I have not added many notes in > > CHANGES.txt recently. I may be getting slopy, but I also remember some > > discussion about how to use changes.txt a while back and figure we should > > revist it to make sure everything necessary is in there before 1.3. > > > > My understanding is that CHANGES.txt is for folks following what has > > happened between releases -- it does not need to include internal > > modifications if there is no impact on the user. > > > > For example, SOLR-493 is not there since it fixes an issue introduced since > > 1.2 -- using CHANGES.txt to say what happened in SOLR-142 had some > > side-effects that we now have cleared up seems overly complicated for anyone > > following. Likewise the recent changes/modifictions to the > > UpdateRequestProcessor framework. > > > > Is this understanding correct? > > > > Are there more (or fewer) things we should include in CHANGES.txt? > > > > ryan > > > > > -- > Regards, > Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
