lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Changes Mess
Date Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:11:00 GMT
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

> What's the difference between Mike going and writing up a more informative CHANGES.txt
entry than say updating JIRA with the information from that entry to have a more descriptive
title?
>

Well, you are right, but its another modification to JIRA (an edit).

And then there are more examples like this:
CHANGES:
* LUCENE-2650: Added extra safety to MMapIndexInput clones to prevent
accessing an unmapped buffer if the input is closed
JIRA:
* LUCENE-2650: improve windows defaults in FSDirectory

The jira is *CORRECT*. While working on the issue i discovered we
could trivially add some extra safety. So i backported the extra
safety to all branches.
In this case i would have to split my patch in half and create another
JIRA issue for this very trivial change?

Just saying, to do what you are saying (by the way, I'm not opposed to
the idea!), we would have to change the way we use JIRA and increase
noise to the mailing list.

There are quite a few examples like this: e.g. this "jira release
notes" say this: [LUCENE-2055] - Fix buggy stemmers and Remove
duplicate analysis functionality. But i certainly didn't do this in a
bugfix release!

what actually happened is in contrib/CHANGES.txt:
* LUCENE-2055: Add documentation noting that the Dutch and French
stemmers in contrib/analyzers do not implement the Snowball algorithm
correctly, and recommend to use the equivalents in contrib/snowball if
possible.

So I don't know how jira would handle this case? because we merged
contrib/snowball with contrib/analyzers in 3.1 i would have to create
a separate jira issue just so that 3.1 has the correct
description/path name in its release notes? and in 4.0 i'd have to
create a third duplicate JIRA issue because we merged all the
analyzers, so there it needs to refer to modules/analysis?

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


Mime
View raw message