lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Busch <busch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 2.5 versus 2.9, was Re: who clears attributes?
Date Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:36:14 GMT
You didn't really comment on my proposal: I suggested to not remove the 
old Token API and old queryparser in 3.0. Instead with 3.0 change the 
bw-policy, so that we can remove deprecated things in minor releases 
(e.g. 3.1 in this case).

I think your 2.5 proposal has drawbacks: if we release 2.5 now to test 
the new major features in the field, then do you want to stop adding new 
features to trunk until we release 2.9 to not have the same situation 
then again? How long should this testing in the field take?

  Michael

On 8/10/09 12:26 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> On Aug 10, 2009, at 3:06 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
>
>> I think we should change the backwards-compatibility policy as 
>> proposed in LUCENE-1698 and remove some deprecated things (inlcuding 
>> the old TokenStream API, maybe query parser) in 3.1, not 3.0.
>
> Maybe.  I'm not convinced yet that the current QP should go away 
> either.  The new QP sounds good and all paper, but from the looks of 
> it at first glance, it is complicated (a whole package filled with 
> classes just to implement the old QP versus a single JavaCC file and a 
> single Java class), while the old one has been around for a long time 
> and seen a lot of field use (and admittedly has warts), whereas both 
> the new QP and the new Token stuff are essentially last minute 
> additions to a last minor release right before we are about to do a 
> major release and remove a whole bunch of deprecated APIs and 
> essentially commit to these new ways of doing things without any field 
> testing.    And I haven't even mentioned the new per-segment stuff yet.
>
> This is my reason for suggesting 2.5.  It gives us some real running 
> time before we have to commit to them.  If I had to vote on 2.9 today 
> in light of what it means for 3.0, it likely would be -1.
>
> -Grant
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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