Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-50326-apmail-lucene-dev-archive=lucene.apache.org@lucene.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 82231 invoked from network); 4 May 2010 18:01:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 4 May 2010 18:01:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 15836 invoked by uid 500); 4 May 2010 18:01:20 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org
Received: (qmail 15701 invoked by uid 500); 4 May 2010 18:01:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@lucene.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@lucene.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.lucene.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org
Received: (qmail 15694 invoked by uid 99); 4 May 2010 18:01:20 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 May 2010 18:01:20 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rcmuir@gmail.com designates
 209.85.218.222 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.218.222] (HELO mail-bw0-f222.google.com)
 (209.85.218.222)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 May 2010 18:01:12 +0000
Received: by bwz22 with SMTP id 22so2224187bwz.5
        for <dev@lucene.apache.org>; Tue, 04 May 2010 11:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to
         :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type;
        bh=+P9SNFNKWHgCAemUOn5oZsYVQesYQ3b7jxsEEh7dZw8=;
        b=UDbxfBBHGbEZzPnNEniqdhW46uHgN6UvPVdRedJOdMK1kbRpYlw8c23u7gL//TUlqF
         WUg6/ldmB3AO0LU8rL7NpfBbbrz9d1Z6D5oGhMQKSPNRQ2JPRJEKzjJVcMsswUrDQkIW
         /dEHidc86gu9zkr0lGzmtYG2tWA152qm2xRfs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type;
        b=Ma1CrETXf58w5VGHjFqWlyejSGZVEkRn2EDqDWni1d7IqBbW+58NO4/oxeTwOML2Pe
         DE74zGa8hJf/OS87kF7kX/NLtq8eDObhzSmUEffnQka5RCDndzMvX+IPrJGVT7jdCzbL
         NZB9xrFG69PnkhVFteMvQQ1hyzRsPu4LHGUNQ=
Received: by 10.204.21.20 with SMTP id h20mr390164bkb.149.1272996052317; Tue,
	04 May 2010 11:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.58.136 with HTTP; Tue, 4 May 2010 11:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <o2x786fde51005041038gc482fd9ezf1e561800b7c0be@mail.gmail.com>
References: <o2x786fde51005041038gc482fd9ezf1e561800b7c0be@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 14:00:32 -0400
Message-ID: <h2l8f0ad1f31005041100u67199188jcd71d79d97fd06aa@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the future of Version?
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00032555748a7fb5680485c87d7b
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--00032555748a7fb5680485c87d7b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> So what did we agree on the future of Version? Do we remove it
> entirely starting w/ 4.0? For analyzers it'd make sense b/c we say
> that you can use a specific analyzers package version to get the
> desired behavior. Since Version is mostly used in analyzers - do we
> want to remove it entirely in 4.0?
>
>
Why not keep it around, while its needed. For example, its needed in
analyzers until they are in a separately versioned module. For other
components (e.g. queryparsing), when/if they become modules, then they too
will no longer need Version.



-- 
Robert Muir
rcmuir@gmail.com

--00032555748a7fb5680485c87d7b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Shai Ere=
ra <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:serera@gmail.com">serera@gmail.c=
om</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">

Hi<br>
<br>
So what did we agree on the future of Version? Do we remove it<br>
entirely starting w/ 4.0? For analyzers it&#39;d make sense b/c we say<br>
that you can use a specific analyzers package version to get the<br>
desired behavior. Since Version is mostly used in analyzers - do we<br>
want to remove it entirely in 4.0?<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>=
Why not keep it around, while its needed. For example, its needed in analyz=
ers until they are in a separately versioned module. For other components (=
e.g. queryparsing), when/if they become modules, then they too will no long=
er need Version.</div>

<div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br>-- <br>Robert Muir<br><a href=3D"ma=
ilto:rcmuir@gmail.com">rcmuir@gmail.com</a><br>

--00032555748a7fb5680485c87d7b--