lucene-solr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otis Gospodnetic <otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: CHANGES.txt
Date Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:21:24 GMT
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 <shalinmangar@gmail.com>
> 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.


Mime
View raw message