lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Busch <>
Subject Re: back compat policy changes?
Date Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:22:54 GMT
Hey Hoss,

Almost everyone agreed to the backwards-compatibility changes I posted 
here: JIRA-1698. (It turned out that Shai had proposed an almost 
identical proposal in one of the long threads that I admittedly didn't 
fully read either).

I suggested to send a note to java-user to get some feedback from the 
users. Then we should have an official vote on java-dev to decide 
formally if we want to change the policy according to the proposal.

I haven't sent the mail to java-user yet. But it's on my (long) list of 
things to do....


On 6/24/09 5:22 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> (Please remain calm, this is just a request for clarification/summation)
> As I slowly catch up on the 9000+ Lucene related emails that I 
> accumulated during my 2 month hiatus, I notice several rather large 
> threads (i think totally ~400 messages) on the subject of our back 
> compat policy (where it works, where it's failing us; where it hurts 
> users because it works as designed, where it hurts users because it 
> doesn't work as designed; how we could change it to be better, why we 
> shouldn't change it; etc...)
> I won't pretend that i've read all of those messages ... i won't even 
> pretend that I've skimmed all those messages, but i did skim *some* of 
> those messages, and in some of the later threads there seemed to be a 
> lot of concensus about ideas that (as far as i can tell) were not just 
> "leave things alone".
> With that in mind, i was kind of suprised to see that the neither of 
> the two wiki pages (that i know of) related to backwards compatibility 
> have been updated since *well* before all of the recent threads...
> My request is that someone who was involved in the previous 
> discussions take a stab at updating one or both of those docs to 
> reflect what the concensus of the community was.  Other people can 
> then review the diff for those documentation changes and spot check 
> ewther they feel it reflects the concensus as they understand it.  But 
> until the written policy has been changed, our policy (by definition) 
> hasn't really been changed.
>     In short: "Patches Welcome!"
> -Hoss
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message