lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven A Rowe <sar...@syr.edu>
Subject RE: CHANGES.txt
Date Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:44:38 GMT
Hi Mike,

On 4/24/2009 at 4:45 PM, Michael McCandless wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Steven A Rowe <sarowe@syr.edu> wrote:
> > - Five issues (LUCENE-1186, 1452, 1453, 1465 and 1544) are mentioned
> > in both the 2.4.1 section and in the Trunk section.  AFAICT, it has
> > not been standard practice to mention bug fixes on a major or minor
> > release (which Trunk will become) if they are mentioned on a prior
> > patch release.
> 
> Hmm -- I thought it'd be good to be clear on which bugs were fixed,
> where, even if it causes some redundancy?

Right: SUM(+1 clarity, -0.5 redundancy) = +0.5 :)

So the policy you're suggesting is: "When backporting bug fixes from trunk to a patch version,
make note of the change in both the trunk and patch version sections of CHANGES.txt", right?

Makes sense (though as I noted, this policy has never before been used), but why then did
you include only 5 out of the 15 bug fixes listed under 2.4.1 in the Trunk section?

> > - The Trunk section sports use of a new feature: <code> sections,
> > for the two mentions of LUCENE-1575.  This looks fine in the text
> > rendering, but looks crappy in the HTML version, since
> > changes2html.pl escapes HTML metacharacters to appear as-is in
> > the HTML rendering, but the newlines in the code are converted to
> > a single space.  I think this should be fixed by modifying
> > changes2html.pl to convert <code> and </code> into (unescaped)
> > <code><pre> and </pre></code>, respectively, since just
passing
> > through <code> and </code>, without </?pre>, while changing the
> > font to monospaced (nice), still collapses whitespace (not nice).
> > (There is a related question: should all HTML tags in CHANGES.txt
> > be passed through without being escaped?  I don't think so;
> > better to handle them on a case-by-case basis, as the need
> > arises.)
> 
> Can you make a patch for <code><pre>...</pre></code>?  (I like
that
> approach).  I agree let's not make it generic to all HTML tags for
> now...

Done: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1610

Steve


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message