lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <>
Subject Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0?
Date Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:34:47 GMT
Ryan McKinley wrote:
> I would love to set goals that are ~3 months out so that we don't have
> another 1 year release cycle.  For a 2.0 release where we could have
> more back-compatibly flexibility, i would love to see some work that
> may be too ambitious...  In particular, the config spaghetti needs
> some attention.
> I don't see the need to increment solr to 2.0 for the lucene 3.0
> change -- of course that needs to be noted, but incrementing the major
> number in solr only makes sense if we are going to change *solr*
> significantly.
Lucene major numbers don't work that way, and I don't think Solr needs
to work that way be default. I think major numbers are better for
indicating backwards compat issues than major features with the way
these projects work. Which is why Yonik mentions 1.5 with weaker back
compat - its not just the fact that we are going to Lucene 3.x - its
that Solr still relies on some of the API's that won't be around in 3.x
- they are not all trivial to remove or to remove while preserving back

> The lucene 2.x -> 3.0 upgrade path seems independent of that to me.  I
> would even argue that with solr 1.4 we have already required many
> lucene 3.0 changes -- All my custom lucene stuff had to be reworked to
> work with solr 1.4 (tokenizers & multi-reader filters).
Many - but certainly not all.
> In general, I wonder where the solr back-compatibility contract
> applies (and to what degree).  For solr, I would rank the importance as:
> #1 - the URL API syntax.  Client query parameters should change as
> little as possible
> #2 - configuration
> #3 - java APIs
Someone else would likely rank it differently - not everyone using Solr
even uses HTTP with it. Someone heavily involved in custom plugins might
care more about that than config. As a dev, I just plainly rank them all
as important and treat them on a case by case basis.
> With that in mind, i think 'solr 1.5 with lucene 3.x' makes the most
> sense.  Unless we see making serious changes to solr that would
> warrent a major release bump.
What is a serious change that would warrant a bump in your opinion?
> Lucene has an explict back-compatibility contract:
> I don't know if solr has one...  if we make one, I would like it to
> focus on the URL syntax+configuration
Its not nice to give people plugins and then not worry about back compat
for them :)
> ryan
> On Nov 18, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>> What should the next version of Solr be?
>> Options:
>> - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 2.9.x
>> - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 3.x, with weaker back compat given all
>> of the removed lucene deprecations from 2.9->3.0
>> - have a Solr 2.0 with a lucene 3.x
>> -Yonik
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

- Mark

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message