I wouldn't worry about moving of already recorded changes (i.e. cleanup). I'd just do the right thing from now on.
Getting 1.3 out next week sounds much more interesting to me. :) 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 5:16:07 PM > Subject: Re: CHANGES.txt > > Ok, just to summarize: We will maintain separate changelogs for both SolrJ > and DIH. We should also make sure these changelogs are included in the > nightly tarballs. > > Even if they are internal changes, no harm in documenting them in a single > place. Besides it is the only place where we give credit to our contributors > in a proper fashion. > > So should we move all SolrJ and DIH related changes to their respective > changelogs? I share Otis's concern on the inflating main changelog file. > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Ryan McKinley wrote: > > > I think an independent location for solrj changes is a good thing. They > > are not relevant for anyone using any other client... the ruby client has > > its own changelog. Solrj is a bit strange though since it is used within > > the SearchComponents. > > > > Since solrj has not yet been released, the coverage in CHANGES.txt it a bit > > limited -- i don't think it is important for to follow all the internal > > changes. > > > > Re independent change log for DIH? that sounds good to me. > > > > ryan > > > > > > -- > Regards, > Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
