lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Busch <>
Subject Re: Finishing Lucene 2.9
Date Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:21:55 GMT
On 8/19/09 3:16 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
>> 0 issues! Congrats everyone. 2.9 was quite a beast.
>> So looks like we should get a few things in order.
>> 1. Anyone dying to be release manager? I think I could do it, but I'm
>> kind of pressed for time ...
>> 2. Lets start crawling all over this release - bugs/javadoc/packaging etc.
>> 3. In regards to that - I'd like to suggest that we don't do the release
>> branch early for 2.9. I know we normally make the release
>>      branch so that further dev can continue on trunk. In this case I
>> don't think that is wise. I propose that we lock down trunk for a
>> while, to force people to concentrate on *this* release. Otherwise we
>> divide our limited forces into two - those working on release, and those
>> working on trunk and beyond. We can kind of enforce this by making the
>> release branch last minute I think.
> I think 3.0 is a little bit special: We move to Java 1.5, so in my opinion,
> we should not only remove deprecations, but also add Generics and remove
> StringBuffer and so on. I have some "patches" for that available, e.g. the
> casting currently needed for the Attributes API can be more elegantly solved
> by using generics (something like "T addAttribute(Class<T extends
> Attribute>)"). If we do not add generics to the public API in 3.0, we have
> to wait one major release longer to add them.

Yes, I added that already in the very first AttributeSource patch - it's 
currently commented out
at the bottom of the class I think. Probably a bit out of date. I 
definitely want to do that to improve
readability of the attributes, it's much nicer with generics. That's how 
I started coding it and why
I started liking the syntax, before I needed to make it a bit ugly for 
JDK 1.4.


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

View raw message