>> I think I would prefer to just be able to refer to Lucene issues from time >> to time in Solr's CHANGES.txt file and obviously, the patch would contain >> the fix across the source. Thoughts?
I would appreciate creating two issues and use one only for reference and link it by the one which contains patches and discussion if the changes are large. Using SOLR- vs. LUCENE- I'd decide on a case by case basis depending which "project" / "codebase" might undergo the most significant changes. Generally, referencing the issues in CHANGES.TXT sounds like a good idea. simon On 8/18/10, Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> > wrote: >> Anyone have opinions on dealing with "combined issues" in JIRA. By this, >> I mean, issues that involve both changes to Lucene and Solr. > > It often makes sense - we've had a lot of patches that go across both > already. > > -Yonik > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
