lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>
Subject Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
Date Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:23:44 GMT




On Oct 30, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't want to come across as negative here... i'm not trying to  
> single anyone out,
> just a bit confused as to why my issue was singled out when theres  
> already been both new features and new deprecations added to 3.0,
> and the issue in question doesnt even have any deprecations. then  
> again i don't really care if its in 3.0 or 3.1, but its just wierd.
>

It was just because your issue caught my eye because I tend to keep a  
closer eye on the language stuff because it's an area of interest.  
Nothing personal.


> a search on 'deprecated' in contrib is pretty enlightening.
>
> here's an example from spatial: DistanceApproximation entire class  
> deprecated!
>
>  * @deprecated This has been replaced with more accurate
>  * math in {@link LLRect}.
>
> this deprecation traces back to LUCENE-1781, which is marked as Fix  
> Version 2.9
> makes me want to delete it, except if you check contrib/CHANGES, you  
> see it wasn't actually applied until 3.0
> so it shouldnt be deleted yet.
>
> again, not trying to be negative, +1 to both the contributor(s) and  
> committers that fixed this bug in spatial, as I sure don't  
> understand it.
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
> What deprecations were already added?
>
> Robert Muir wrote:
> > well, not to complain, but I will mention on this topic.
> >
> > If something is marked deprecated, its 10x easier if in the javadocs
> > there is some version information applied.
> >
> > In the wild west that is contrib, its currently a bit difficult  
> for me
> > to clear out the deprecations from 2.9, because there are new
> > deprecations added in 3.0.
> > it takes svn annotate + jira + CHANGES to figure out exactly what
> > should be cleared out (and sometimes these all seem to disagree, Fix
> > Version != Changes, etc etc)
> >
> > This is why i only did part of LUCENE-2022
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com
> > <mailto:markrmiller@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     I have no problem with new features either - but I would vote  
> that
> >     if it
> >     requires new deprecations, it should wait.
> >
> >     I think its nice to have a clean release first. And I also  
> don't think
> >     any of this features should hold up the 3.0 release. Lets get  
> it out -
> >     then focus on new features.
> >
> >     Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> >     > How do you handle deprecations of old stuff for the new  
> contribution
> >     > (assuming it needs it)?  Seems weird to have a major release  
> that
> >     > immediately has deprecations.  At the same time, it seems  
> weird to
> >     > have a major release that doesn't contain new features.  If
> >     anything,
> >     > it is our best opportunity to put in new stuff
> >     >
> >     > Traditionally, the only difference between .9 and .0 has been
> >     removal
> >     > of deprecations.  This time around we are saying also JDK 1.5.
> >     >
> >     > Not saying we can't do it, just wondering.
> >     >
> >     > On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:31 PM, DM Smith wrote:
> >     >
> >     >> I don't see any reason to freeze new contributions from any
> >     release.
> >     >>
> >     >> On 10/30/2009 03:19 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> >     >>> thanks Michael.
> >     >>>
> >     >>> does anyone else have any opinion on this issue?
> >     >>> fyi we already have several new features committed to 3.0  
> contrib
> >     >>> already (see contrib/CHANGES),
> >     >>> but I don't too much care either way, if I should not be
> >     adding this
> >     >>> feature to 3.0, I'd like to set the version in jira to 3.1
> >     >>>
> >     >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Michael McCandless
> >     >>> <lucene@mikemccandless.com  
> <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com>
> >     <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com
> >     <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com>>> wrote:
> >     >>>
> >     >>>     I think we should allow new features into contrib for  
> 3.0.
> >     >>>
> >     >>>     I don't even like holding new features from core for  
> 3.0.
> >     >>>
> >     >>>     In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is  
> locked
> >     down....
> >     >>>     Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing ahead  
> at
> >     all times.
> >     >>>
> >     >>>     Mike
> >     >>>
> >     >>>     On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Muir
> >     <rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
> >     >>>     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>>>
 
> wrote:
> >     >>>     > Hi,
> >     >>>     >
> >     >>>     > What is the consensus on new features for contrib  
> for Lucene
> >     >>>     3.0? I know
> >     >>>     > that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and  
> deprecation
> >     >>>     removal.
> >     >>>     >
> >     >>>     > I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the right  
> version,
> >     >>>     but I figured
> >     >>>     > its really not just about that specific issue, I would
> >     like to
> >     >>>     know the
> >     >>>     > plans in general.
> >     >>>     >
> >     >>>     > Thanks,
> >     >>>     > Robert
> >     >>>     >
> >     >>>     > --
> >     >>>     > Robert Muir
> >     >>>     > rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
> >     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>>
> >     >>>     >
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >      
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     >>>     To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >     java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>
> >     >>>     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>>
> >     >>>     For additional commands, e-mail:
> >     java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org>
> >     >>>     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>> --
> >     >>> Robert Muir
> >     >>> rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
> >     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>>
> >     >>
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     - Mark
> >
> >     http://www.lucidimagination.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >      
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>
> >     For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Robert Muir
> > rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
>
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com

Mime
View raw message