On Aug 19, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote: > : Form me it does not matter, but when I open new issues, I do it against > : the project where the “bug” is visible. If there is also code committed > : to Solr, but the main task is Lucene this is fine. > > Right ... i think it's handy to still have the "SOLR" bug queue for people > to file bugs against Solr, if they wind up requiring fixes further down > the tree then so be it.
+1 > > : Personally, i don't waste any time thinking about whether the issue is > : SOLR or LUCENE, and I think two JIRAs is actually confusing. > > If you know from the outset when you create an issue (ie: tracking an > improvement, or a new feature) that it requires updating "the whole tree" > then it should definitely be a LUCENE issue. even if you aren't sure it > makes sense to start using LUCENE, but having SOLR arround for Solr users > to file bugs is handy. This is what I did for LUCENE-2608. > > Worst case scenerio: if it starts out as a SOLR issue and then the scope > gets bigger, creating a new LUCENE issue to track it (and linking the two) > seems trivial to me. > > As far as refrencing LUCENE-* issues directly in Solr's CHANGES.txt -- > sure, why not? Again, I did. -Grant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
