lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Why release 3.0?
Date Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:36:21 GMT
X.n must be able to read (X-1).n - so 3.1 will be able to read 2.9 -
major versions are also for removing deprecations.

Jake Mannix wrote:
> Yeah, sorry, I just meant that 3.0 can read 2.9 index format, but 3.1
> will not necessarily have that capability (this is the whole point of
> the difference between 2.9 and 3.0, in my understanding).
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de
> <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de>> wrote:
>
>     2.9 has **not** the same format as 3.0, an index created with 3.0
>     cannot be read with 2.9. This is because compressed field support
>     was removed and therefore the version number of the stored fields
>     file was upgraded. But indexes from 2.9 can be read with 3.0 and
>     support may get removed in 4.0. 3.0 Indexes can be read until
>     version 4.9.
>
>      
>
>     Uwe
>
>     -----
>     Uwe Schindler
>     H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>     http://www.thetaphi.de
>     eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     *From:* Jake Mannix [mailto:jake.mannix@gmail.com
>     <mailto:jake.mannix@gmail.com>]
>     *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 7:15 PM
>
>     *To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org <mailto:java-dev@lucene.apache.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: Why release 3.0?
>
>      
>
>     Don't users need to upgrade to 3.0 because 3.1 won't be
>     necessarily able to read your
>     2.4 index file formats?  I suppose if you've already upgraded to
>     2.9, then all is well because
>     2.9 is the same format as 3.0, but we can't assume all users
>     upgraded from 2.4 to 2.9. 
>
>     If you've done that already, then 3.0 might not be necessary, but
>     if you're on 2.4 right now,
>     you will be in for a bad surprise if you try to upgrade to 3.1.
>
>       -jake
>
>     On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Erick Erickson
>     <erickerickson@gmail.com <mailto:erickerickson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     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
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>


-- 
- 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


Mime
View raw message