tika-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Cutting <cutt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Tika Changelog
Date Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:53:43 GMT
+1 for CHANGES.txt.  Yes, it is largely redundant with information in 
Jira, but its advantages are [1] a more consise, user-friendly 
description than usually exists in Jira (as illustrated by Yonik); and 
[2] it provides a great sanity check when merging changes between 
branches, since each commit is accompanied by a description.  You can 
run 'svn merge ...' then 'svn diff CHANGES.txt' and easily check whether 
the merge included the desired changes.

I think the best practice is to include a description of the change both 
in CHANGES.txt and in the commit message.  The description in the commit 
message might be shorter, e.g., only the first sentence from 
CHANGES.txt.  Commit messages should of course also always include all 
relevant Jira issue ids, whether it is the initial commit or a merge 
between branches.  This is more redundancy, but descriptive commit 
messages make it possible to use things 'svn log' without constantly 
having to follow references to Jira, and issue ids in commit messages 
make it possible to see in Jira all branches and revisions that a patch 
is in.  These cost a bit at commit time, but make the repository and 
Jira much nicer to use.

Doug


Chris Mattmann wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> 
>  My +1 for having a CHANGES.txt file, for all the reasons that Yonik
> mentioned below. Also, it, to me, is much easier to maintain (simply doing
> it incrementally, with each major update), then figuring out the mysteries
> of JIRA ;)
> 
>  So, I'd like to call for a vote from the committer community. Should we use
> a CHANGES.txt file? (please mark an X by your choice)
> 
> [ ]  Yes
> [ ]  No
> 
>  Let's leave the vote open until we have a majority of binding votes.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Cheers,
>   Chris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/12/07 12:38 PM, "Yonik Seeley" <yonik@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/12/07, Sami Siren <ssiren@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2007/6/12, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com>:
>>>> On 6/7/07, Chris Mattmann <chris.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>>>> I've created a Tika changelog, CHANGES.txt, within the TIKA trunk that
we
>>>>> can use to track changes, akin to Nutch. Typically, when a committer
>>>>> commits
>>>>> a patch (in Nutch) that closes out a tracked issue (i.e., with JIRA),
then
>>>>> we add a comment into CHANGES.txt, akin to the following (where "n" is
a
>>>>> number incremented from 1, for each release):
>>>> I think it's just duplicating information from the svn log, but if
>>>> people think it's a good idea, then I have no problem following suit.
>>> Jira can also provide a list of changes (if all changes are logged
>>> there) with the changelog - or release notes [1] functionality.
>>>
>>> [1] 
>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12312013&styleN
>>> ame=Text&projectId=10680&Create=Create
>> I personally use CHANGES.txt in Lucene and Solr as user-level
>> documentation / release notes.  If it's too minor, an internal
>> cleanup, a documentation fix, etc, I don't put it in.  It also
>> provides a place to concisely explain the impact of a change (in user
>> language), rather than requiring the user to try and glean this from a
>> long JIRA discussion mingled with dev-list discissions.
>>
>> Examples:
>>
>>  3. SOLR-91: allow configuration of a limit of the number of searchers
>>     that can be warming in the background.  This can be used to avoid
>>     out-of-memory errors, or contention caused by more and more searchers
>>     warming in the background.  An error is thrown if the limit specified
>>     by maxWarmingSearchers in solrconfig.xml is exceeded. (yonik)
>>
>> and
>>
>>  3. LUCENE-710: added optional autoCommit boolean to IndexWriter
>>     constructors.  When this is false, index changes are not committed
>>     until the writer is closed.  This gives explicit control over when
>>     a reader will see the changes.  Also added optional custom
>>     deletion policy to explicitly control when prior commits are
>>     removed from the index.  This is intended to allow applications to
>>     share an index over NFS by customizing when prior commits are
>>     deleted. (Mike McCandless)
>>
>> It's much more understandable then a JIRA bug list, but it does take more
>> work.
>> If you wish to go this route, you could perhaps defer it until the
>> first Tika release.
>>
>> -Yonik
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message