Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of serera@gmail.com designates
 74.125.78.25 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=sF/Wq4C4wyG/uZnqEUx3j91TSYkjWyGy/bTXKJNACkXnuP1Uvmet/eNUs69bs12MX+
         uNGzRKq6MgahYTq9lr94lUzu2O1CZe8jqangfp+ssIJpK8OPNAXGwYNp/zMvj8C5rJ21
         5gs3dvJj/ZEwj/Z1hrqFXRyviduzRUjZmTm40=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20090824181103.GA21811@rectangular.com>
References: <4A8C10FB.4030108@gmail.com> <4A8C7AE5.5040409@gmail.com>
	 <9ac0c6aa0908200308o27e6a63atcf57188d5e6bc4af@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A8D485A.2010106@gmail.com>
	 <9ac0c6aa0908231018s8c7a746h89da4e4e2a886489@mail.gmail.com>
	 <8f0ad1f30908231038q475ff87bued2bd64e4f803d90@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9ac0c6aa0908240329y53603f21m3ae1010fc28ca514@mail.gmail.com>
	 <85d3c3b60908241032k504c37fapeb082ae3427988d5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9ac0c6aa0908241046y7239d378te10f4d92037b2d7b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20090824181103.GA21811@rectangular.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:15:20 +0300
Message-ID: <786fde50908241215v3cf00c3cqe9c6a3ca9714ed4@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Finishing Lucene 2.9
From: Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364d1ccff3d00c0471e80946

--0016364d1ccff3d00c0471e80946
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I don't mean to stir the ocean again, but I think it all boils down to this
jar drop-in ability. If someone plans to upgrade to 2.9 by just dropping in
a jar, then I'd like to hear of that someone who succeeded. 2.9 already
contains back-compat breaks. So that someone must be using Lucene is such a
basic way, that I find it hard to imagine that someone would upgrade to 2.9
at all (I don't recall any serious bugs that were fixed).

Other than that, like was said on this thread several times already, anyone
who upgrades to 2.9 (I use anyone inclusively) will probably clean his code
from all "deprecated" warnings and move to use the new API, because
otherwise he'll need to do it in 3.0. And for all those people, 3.0 would
just be a 1.5 upgrade, and I'd bet people out there already on 1.5 would
want to take advantage of the new API w/ generics, so that means another
code change?

I don't care too much, because I'll probably update my code after every
Lucene release. This is just to save some work for the RMs, and reduce the
confusion around the community (e.g., someone who already plans to change
his code anyway might decide to wait for 3.0 and do a major code update to
his application).

My two cents,
Shai

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 01:46:35PM -0400, Michael McCandless wrote:
>
> > Right, that is and has been the "plan" for 2.9/3.0/3.1 for quite some
> time.
> >
> > We are now discussing whether to change the plan, but so far it looks
> > likely we'll just stick with it...
>
> It seems like breaking the promise would be disruptive now.  But you have
> an
> opportunity to change the policy at 3.0, affecting 3.9 and 4.0.
>
> That's a 3.0 issue, though -- not a 2.9 issue.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

--0016364d1ccff3d00c0471e80946
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I don&#39;t mean to stir the ocean again, but I think it a=
ll boils down to this jar drop-in ability. If someone plans to upgrade to 2=
.9 by just dropping in a jar, then I&#39;d like to hear of that someone who=
 succeeded. 2.9 already contains back-compat breaks. So that someone must b=
e using Lucene is such a basic way, that I find it hard to imagine that som=
eone would upgrade to 2.9 at all (I don&#39;t recall any serious bugs that =
were fixed).<br>
<br>Other than that, like was said on this thread several times already, an=
yone who upgrades to 2.9 (I use anyone inclusively) will probably clean his=
 code from all &quot;deprecated&quot; warnings and move to use the new API,=
 because otherwise he&#39;ll need to do it in 3.0. And for all those people=
, 3.0 would just be a 1.5 upgrade, and I&#39;d bet people out there already=
 on 1.5 would want to take advantage of the new API w/ generics, so that me=
ans another code change?<br>
<br>I don&#39;t care too much, because I&#39;ll probably update my code aft=
er every Lucene release. This is just to save some work for the RMs, and re=
duce the confusion around the community (e.g., someone who already plans to=
 change his code anyway might decide to wait for 3.0 and do a major code up=
date to his application).<br>
<br>My two cents,<br>Shai<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 24,=
 2009 at 9:11 PM, Marvin Humphrey <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:m=
arvin@rectangular.com">marvin@rectangular.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204,=
 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 01:46:35PM -0400, Michael McCandl=
ess wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; Right, that is and has been the &quot;plan&quot; for 2.9/3.0/3.1 for q=
uite some time.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; We are now discussing whether to change the plan, but so far it looks<=
br>
&gt; likely we&#39;ll just stick with it...<br>
<br>
</div>It seems like breaking the promise would be disruptive now. =A0But yo=
u have an<br>
opportunity to change the policy at 3.0, affecting 3.9 and 4.0.<br>
<br>
That&#39;s a 3.0 issue, though -- not a 2.9 issue.<br>
<font color=3D"#888888"><br>
Marvin Humphrey<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <a href=3D"mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apach=
e.org">java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org</a><br>
For additional commands, e-mail: <a href=3D"mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apa=
che.org">java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--0016364d1ccff3d00c0471e80946--