lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Why release 3.0?
Date Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:06:50 GMT
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:

>  Hi Erick,
>
>
>
> 3.0 is **not** unsupported or beta release, it is the cleaned up 2.9.1
> release. You are right, it is not needed for 2.9.1 users to upgrade (but
> they can), but for new users starting with Lucene, the recommendadion is to
> use it and not 2.9.
>
> 3.0 also contains some cleanups needed for 3.1, as the compressed fields
> are no longer supported, so they must be uncompressed, which is done during
> optimizing/merging in 3.0. Later versions will remove support for older
> index types, but you should really update your indexes, especially because
> flex indexing will possibly remove more support for older indexes (as it
> gets more complex to maintain all the different file formats).
>
>
>
> So 3.0 is recommended for users starting new Java 5 projects and want a
> clean API. People needing backwards compatibility can use 2.9.1, but support
> for that version will be cancelled in future and bugfixes will only go into
> 3.x.
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerickson@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 7:10 PM
> *To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> *Subject:* Why release 3.0?
>
>
>
> One of my "specialties" is asking obvious questions just to see if
> everyone's assumptions
>
> are aligned. So with the discussion about branching 3.0 I have to ask "Is
> there going to
>
> be any 3.0 release intended for *production*?". And if not, would we save a
> lot of work
>
> by just not worrying about retrofitting fixes to a 3.0 branch and carrying
> on with 3.1
>
> as the first *supported* 3.x release?
>
>
>
> Since 3.0 is "upgrade-to-java5 and remove deprecations", I'm not sure *as a
> user* I see a
>
> good reason to upgrade to 3.0. Getting a "beta/snapshot" release to get a
> head start on
>
> cleaning up my code does seem worthwhile, if I have the spare time. And
> having a base
>
> 3.0 version that's not changing all over the place would be useful for
> that.
>
>
>
> That said, I'm also not terribly comfortable with a "release" that's out
> there and unsupported.
>
>
>
> Apologies if this has already been discussed, but I don't remember it.
> Although my memory
>
> isn't what it used to be (but some would claim it never was<G>)...
>
>
>
> Erick
>
>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message