[GitHub] [solr] cpoerschke commented on pull request #1056: SOLR-16442: upgrade to Lucene 9.4 (do and document)

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

cpoerschke commented on PR #1056:
URL: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/1056#issuecomment-1283667590

   > LGTM. One thought on the docs, would it make sense to reference back to this PR and [SOLR-16442](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-16442) for the next person to see an example? For repetitive tasks, it's great to have a nice model to follow that shows all the types of changes required....
   
   I'd broken up the change into distinctive commits with that sort of use and potentially review ease in mind.
   
   In terms of explicitly referencing back to the PR and/or JIRA issue, I'm not so convinced on that for two reasons:
   * ideally the documentation should mention all that needs doing i.e. for the upgrade to be done based on documentation rather than past example(s)
   * it might be off-putting or restrictive to see 13 commits i.e. working through a documented list incrementally is one thing but _perceiving_ that things should be done in separate commits might not be everyone's cup-of-tea


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@solr.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@solr.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-help@solr.apache.org