lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chuck Williams <>
Subject Re: Java 1.5 (was ommented: (LUCENE-565) Supporting deleteDocuments in IndexWriter (Code and Performance Results Provided))
Date Sat, 08 Jul 2006 16:56:27 GMT
Doug Cutting wrote on 07/08/2006 09:41 AM:
> Chuck Williams wrote:
>> I only work in 1.5 and use its features extensively.  I don't think
>> about 1.4 at all, and so have no idea how heavily dependent the code in
>> question is on 1.5.
>> Unfortunately, I won't be able to contribute anything substantial to
>> Lucene so long as it has a 1.4 requirement.
> The 1.5 decision requires a consensus.  You're making ultimatums, which
> does not help to build consensus.  By stating an inflexible position
> you've become a fact that informs the process.

My statement was not intended as an ultimatum at all.  Rather, it is
simply a fact.  I prefer to contribute to Lucene, but my workload simply
does not allow time to be spent on backporting.

> I think we should try to minimize the number of inconvenienced people.
> Both developers and users are people.  Some developers are happy to
> continue in 1.4, adding new features that users who are confined to 1.4
> JVMs will be able to use.  Other developers will only contribute 1.5
> code, perhaps (unless we find a technical workaround) excluding users
> confined to 1.4 JVMs.  But it is difficult to compare the inconvenience
> of a developer who refuses to code back-compatibly to a user who is
> deprived new features.

Doug, respectfully, this issue is inflammatory in its nature.  I've
found a couple of your comments to be inflammatory, although I suspect
you did not intend them that way.  Specifically the term "refuses" above
and your prior comment about considering use of your veto power if the
committers were to vote to move to 1.5.

I'm not "refusing" to do anything.  I am overwhelmed in a crunch for the
next several months and simply informing the community that I have code
that others may find valuable that might be contributed, but that it
requires 1.5 and that I cannot backport it.  I cannot unilaterally
decide to contribute the code, needing the agreement of the company I'm
working for.  They are only interested in the contribution if there is
interest in having it in the core.  These are simply facts.  I suspect
I'm not the only person in this kind of situation.

> Since GCJ is effectively available on all platforms, we could say that
> we will start accepting 1.5 features when a GCJ release supports those
> features.  Does that seem reasonable?

Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.  If I had a vote on this it
would be +1.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message