From java-dev-return-20974-apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive=lucene.apache.org@lucene.apache.org Thu Aug 02 12:29:13 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 85232 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2007 12:29:13 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Aug 2007 12:29:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 24387 invoked by uid 500); 2 Aug 2007 12:29:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 24332 invoked by uid 500); 2 Aug 2007 12:29:06 -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 24319 invoked by uid 99); 2 Aug 2007 12:29:06 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:29:06 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of grant.ingersoll@gmail.com designates 64.233.184.233 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.184.233] (HELO wr-out-0506.google.com) (64.233.184.233) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:29:00 +0000 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 57so173010wri for ; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:28:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=uusc8+6mFiEC3gidQUjAUrXokm+GNN6J8Pz6rwKsQOwwvEpOOFWjhL31sbMYNu1TGY7DHKq3uz3dWemvey4ZLcMRCrwZi/tpqImHUgo7GUBeY0yUNaWmaYOJ+gkdKPdPQ+/4GzLS8rS6PPrjJLESmeumzw1+PVTvSXDaxR7tG6g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=OsbJyivWvJ8TdsTTBIjqu0dqUEy6DzQtC5D9fr8FHnNuCRLkUXzjWFNcELH5ZJ51mNm+ww2T5NdboYemCOf/jYluZbcjS0s6gNAFMRZMoasG/j+hV1LcmVtK5kkO0KAKhObTNfjkIJjgsZqc7/4h6f5Lk2ravrDRBL7W5vfsYKs= Received: by 10.90.50.1 with SMTP id x1mr1675943agx.1186057719620; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.0.3? ( [74.229.189.244]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 32sm2310525aga.2007.08.02.05.28.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <366CC118-B9C1-4AA2-B358-279A622C9809@apache.org> References: <3413A92E-640F-4D52-BF5B-B682F8148B76@gmail.com> <366CC118-B9C1-4AA2-B358-279A622C9809@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Grant Ingersoll Subject: Re: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 08:28:35 -0400 To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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