lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Busch <busch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 2.9.1
Date Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:24:31 GMT
On 10/23/09 3:19 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
>>> Open is still the problem with compressed fields (see LUCENE-1960), if
>>>        
>> we
>>      
>>> use option 3 (isCompressed() deprec method, we have to add it to 2.9,
>>>        
>> too ->
>>      
>>> I would not prefer this).
>>>        
> See the issue for details. I do not want to add this method, as it would
> break bw compatibility in 2.9 if inserted there (but if it is in 3.0 it
> should also be available in 2.9). Otheriwse it breaks 3.0 which is also bad.
>
> At this point, I can say, if you have removed all deprecations from your
> code in 2.9, you can drop in the 3.0 JAR. Adding such a method is a hard
> break, because you cannot read compressed fields easily.
>
>    

Well, we should then have added it to 2.9.0 already. Normally we don't 
introduce new APIs in bugfix releases.

This could be a candidate for the backwards-compat break section: If you 
have compressed fields you need to change your code, otherwise drop-in 
will work.

  Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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