Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rcmuir@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.48 as permitted sender)
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:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=v6bDGrq6Bkdu70rmZa7dwAqQ6Y2nuqHirUG2PCjK8JANVzaHUL9jgm7PmA8d+mjf+X
         NFOdqhNtlx2Xa6SonX9S+VmeSnQyZY3/DVRmvgKU6vWaTy4wuJDxJP5Y9LSviRgvyLOK
         VUWgDXBTw6Ky+cvvUqDomhNBwzOvvm58hlbbU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DFD5CA0B-5222-4A9A-A72B-9F9EC6883376@gmail.com>
References: <CA4A5C993E465A4292E14C850B2BBD26071C5AA710@IMCMBX1.MITRE.ORG>
 <AANLkTimHYyxqhUJS9yf5TNp7pJSbRjDCyoBnnLFOh2pR@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D5AA1E7.9080801@gmail.com> <C306FFFD-57FB-4CDA-B53F-584D05A5ACF1@gmail.com>
 <FA1879FE-B7EA-4F03-A0DA-31A343BA12EF@gmail.com> <4D5ABF4A.507@gmail.com>
 <DFD5CA0B-5222-4A9A-A72B-9F9EC6883376@gmail.com>
From: Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:07:07 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimFUX5q3iYiWE9d2Y1Y9dRBhBn7RVmx_VVi3acG@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Release 3.2 (was Re: Please mark distributed date faceting for
 3.1)
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It appears to me, that the effort to commit the contributions are minima=
l, and that in this case the true cost is that of doing the release.
>
> Heh. I think looks can be deceiving sometimes. I'm not sure I'm willing t=
o hold the responsibility of those commits right now. If someone else is, t=
hat's great ... but I don't find them minimal enough for my taste I suppose=
 ;) Depends on what areas you feel comfortable with I guess.
>

Right, this is why some features with functional patches are sitting
targeted at 3.2 instead of 3.1. Is it possible that we could put
distributed date faceting (SOLR-1709), better cjk handling out of box
(LUCENE-2906), and a better default merge policy (LUCENE-854) all in
3.1 right now? sure it is.

But is this the best decision... I don't think it is. I think as far
as 3.1 goes we already have a great set of features that have baked
for some time, including some rather serious performance improvements
(Mike and I have done some benchmarking against 3.0)... and its
already going to be a more challenging release since its the first one
since we merged lucene and solr.

For these newer features, its not that we are lazy... its that
sometimes you want more tests, want things to "bake" for a while with
hudson's random testing, perhaps want some reviews/second pairs of
eyes on the code, or maybe even just some more time to think about the
change before committing to it.

When we commit it and release it, we are signing up for some degree of
support in the future. Also, personally I think its better to put out
a good release with solid code and a few less features, than a more
buggy release that has a couple of extra features.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org