Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 50295 invoked from network); 18 May 2006 20:00:09 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 18 May 2006 20:00:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 63130 invoked by uid 500); 18 May 2006 20:00:05 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 63074 invoked by uid 500); 18 May 2006 20:00:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 63046 invoked by uid 99); 18 May 2006 20:00:05 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 May 2006 13:00:05 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [169.229.70.167] (HELO rescomp.berkeley.edu) (169.229.70.167) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 May 2006 13:00:04 -0700 Received: by rescomp.berkeley.edu (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 69F105B76E; Thu, 18 May 2006 12:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rescomp.berkeley.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FFB87F403 for ; Thu, 18 May 2006 12:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:59:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Hostetter To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Lucene 2.0 In-Reply-To: <446C7463.5020906@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <446C7463.5020906@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N : Could someone enumerate what needs to be done before 2.0 is released. : From following this thread, it was stated that 2.0 was 1.9 with : deprecations removed. : Recently it appears to be becoming much more than that. I believe Doug's suggestion was to hold off just long enough to fix any egregious bugs, or apply any "safe" patches for bugs that have allready been fixed but not yet applied. the "2.0 is the same as 1.9 but with deprecations removed" policy was about features, but if there are bugs that can be fixed easily, let's fix them. at the monent, there are two Jira issues with a "Fix" version of 2.0 still unresolved: LUCENE-556 and LUCENE-546 .. presumably, unless someone marks any other bugs as "Fix for 2.0" 2.0 can be released once those bugs have been fixed, or sooner if it's decided that nbo one has the time to fix those (or the existing patches aren't safe to apply hastily) ...or at least, that's the way i udnerstand it ... i'm no policy maker. -Hoss --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org