svn commit: r1103831 - /lucene/board-reports/2011/special-board-report-may.txt

[ho...@apache.org]

Author: hossman
Date: Mon May 16 18:44:21 2011
New Revision: 1103831

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1103831&view=rev
Log:
two word tweaks: arise=>arose; that is should=>that they should

Modified:
    lucene/board-reports/2011/special-board-report-may.txt

Modified: lucene/board-reports/2011/special-board-report-may.txt
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/board-reports/2011/special-board-report-may.txt?rev=1103831&r1=1103830&r2=1103831&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- lucene/board-reports/2011/special-board-report-may.txt (original)
+++ lucene/board-reports/2011/special-board-report-may.txt Mon May 16 18:44:21 2011
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ commit/revert incident
 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2272 and the related
 Lucene issue as well as several other mail threads)
 
-The primary root of these problems arise from a disagreement about how
+The primary root of these problems arose from a disagreement about how
 best to move forward with the two products the Lucene PMC ships:
 Apache Lucene and Apache Solr.  A majority of the PMC/committership is
 in favor of a more modular approach to Solr which essentially means
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ refactoring code that has lived in Solr 
 that can be more easily consumed at the Java API level (as opposed to
 the Solr REST API level.)  Others have resisted these changes,
 sometimes for technical reasons and sometimes for what appear to be
-business/political reasons.  Still others have a view that is should
+business/political reasons.  Still others have a view that they should
 be taken on a case by case basis.  These people are not against the
 refactoring, but don't think is absolutely necessary that it must be
 done in order to make other contributions to that particular code