lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <grant.ingers...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release
Date Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:01:08 GMT
yes.  2.3 then on to 2.9

On Aug 2, 2007, at 11:02 AM, Steven Parkes wrote:

> Hmmmm ... just a nit (or did I miss something?) in (2), do you mean  
> 2.3?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:grant.ingersoll@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 5:29 AM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release
>
> OK, I think all the binding votes are for adopting JDK 1.5 with the
> following plan:
> 1.  Put in any new deprecations we want, cleanups, etc.
> 2. Release 2.4 so all of Mike M's goodness is available to 1.4 users
> within the next 2 months or so (no hard date) using our new release
> mechanism (i.e code freeze, branch, documentation.  I tentatively
> volunteer to be the RM, but hope someone will be my wingman on it).
> 3. Announce that 2.9 will be the last version under JDK 1.4
> 4. Put in any other deprecations that we want and do as we did when
> moving from 1.4.3 to 1.9 by laying out a migration plan, etc.
> 5. Release 2.9 as the last official release on JDK 1.4
> 6. Switch 3.0-dev to be on JDK 1.5, removing any deprecated code and
> updating ANT to use 1.5 for source and target.
> 7. Start accepting JDK 1.5 patches on 3.0-dev
>
>
> I am going to put this up on the Wiki as well.  We can open JIRA
> issues as appropriate.  I would think it is reasonable to assume we
> will be on 1.5 by the end of the year, right, since 2.9 will be a
> housekeeping release, more or less?
>
> Cheers,
> Grant
>
> On Jul 30, 2007, at 12:48 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2007, at 8:18 AM, DM Smith wrote:
>>
>>> +1 from me, too. Not because I have a vote or that I am for going
>>> to 1.5, but because it is inevitable and this is a well thought
>>> out, fine plan. (excepting the aggressive timeline that has been
>>> hashed out already in this thread)
>>>
>>> I'd like to point out that there is a consequence of this plan and
>>> how Lucene has done things in the past.
>>>
>>> At 1.9 it was fully compatible with 1.4.3, with deprecations. 2.0
>>> mostly had deprecations removed and a few bug fixes. Then the 2.x
>>> series has been backwardly compatible but not with 1.x (except
>>> being able to read prior indexes, perhaps a few other things.).
>>>
>>> If we continue that same pattern, then there will be no 1.5
>>> features in 2.9. (Otherwise it won't compile under 1.4). Thus, 3.0
>>> will have a 1.4.2 compatible interface. And except for new
>>> classes, new methods and compile equivalent features (such as
>>> Enums), 1.5 features won't appear in the 3.x series API.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, this is a slight variation from the 1.9 -> 2.0 migration.  I
>> think the plan is to switch to 1.5 for compilation for 3.0-dev and
>> then we will be immediately open for accepting 1.5 patches.  In
>> fact, if someone submitted a patch that converted all collections
>> to generics, I would be in favor of accepting it with all the usual
>> caveats.  I don't see any other way around, as I don't think the
>> intent is to say that 3.x contains no 1.5 features other than it
>> compiles using JDK 1.5.
>>
>>
>>> I think it is very important to preserve the Lucene API where
>>> possible and reasonable, not changing it without gain. Given that
>>> this has been the practice, I don't think it is an issue.
>>>
>>
>> I agree.  I think method names, etc. will stay the same, but we
>> will start adding Generics and Enums where appropriate and new code
>> can be all 1.5.  For instance, though, the Field declaration
>> parameters are a prime place for Enums.  So, the move would be to
>> add in the new Enums and deprecate the old Field.Index and
>> Field.Store static ints.  Thus, they would not go away until 4.x
>> (wow, that is weird to say)
>>
>> Does that seem reasonable?
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.grantingersoll.com/
> http://lucene.grantingersoll.com
> http://www.paperoftheweek.com/
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>

------------------------------------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.grantingersoll.com/
http://lucene.grantingersoll.com
http://www.paperoftheweek.com/



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message