lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com>
Subject Re: 2.9, 3.0 and deprecation
Date Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:58:15 GMT

OK, so if we want to fix Fieldable/Field/AbstractField and
InputDoc/OutputDoc (and any other API-changers), we need to do
it for 2.9 not 3.0.

So then the question boils down to whether we should block 2.9 on
these big changes?

My feeling is if nobody steps up (has the "itch" & time) to work on
these big changes (which haven't really proceeded beyond
brainstormings on how we might fix them) soonish, we should not block
2.9 for them...

Mike

Doug Cutting wrote:

> Michael McCandless wrote:
>> Are you saying we can deprecate these classes in 2.9, and all methods
>> whose signature involves one of these classes, without offering the
>> new classes?
>
> No.  Folks should be able to recompile w/o deprecation warnings  
> against 2.9, then upgrade to 3.0.  Features should not be deprecated  
> until they have a replacement, unless they're being removed forever.
>
> Doug
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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


Mime
View raw message