lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Rutherglen <>
Subject Re: Lucene 4.x release
Date Wed, 17 Aug 2011 02:01:58 GMT
Hmm... That one sounds like the most important hindrance to the 4.x
release.  Given there's so much that's new in the release, it seems
like releasing sooner is better than waiting for all of the details to
be completed.  Eg, then the release will be further delayed because of
non-general-deployment / all kinds of new stuff for people to digest
and break.

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Robert Muir <> wrote:
> the postings api.
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Jason Rutherglen
> <> wrote:
>> I didn't know the bulk API was so important.  Which bulk API (eg the
>> postings one or the terms dict)?
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Robert Muir <> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Mark Miller <> wrote:
>>>> Just throwing this out there, but:
>>>> I think it would be really cool if we could get 4.0 out by the end of the
>>>> With such a large release, I think it would also make a lot of sense if we
tried a more formal beta release, just to increase the amount of usage before we officially
sign off on a final 4.0.
>>> I agree with the beta idea, I think its really necessary actually: we
>>> are just being honest at that point that its a real point-zero
>>> release.
>>> on the other hand, besides the GSOC stuff, I think we should
>>> accomplish a few things first to ensure we can actually make the 4.x
>>> release useful and issue minor releases off of it:
>>> * fix the bulk API: otherwise we only have "flexible indexing, as long
>>> as you don't mind flexible == slower". This is really important, I
>>> dont think we have to implement a bunch of new compression algorithms
>>> but the whole postings APIs are suboptimal, and biased towards
>>> lucene's current format: the bulk APIs arent low level enough to give
>>> good performance, the payloads APIs assume you can ask for a payload
>>> at any time (they assume basically that you are going to 'steal bits'
>>> from the positions like we do today), etc etc.
>>> * round out docvalues, especially merging with different docvalues
>>> types and things like that. arguably these are nocommits... I think
>>> you will get an exception during merge? I also think its bad we still
>>> don't use docvalues for norms nor the faceting module, fixing these
>>> kinds of real world uses is probably a great way to round this out.
>>> * figure out the packaging system for modules such that things like
>>> clover/hudson/javadocs etc all work across them (not quite today). We
>>> also need to look at all the minor things like CHANGES.txt and such...
>>> there are too many of these. Furthermore at least I wanted the
>>> analyzers modularization to move forward to a point where we can
>>> remove the Version crap and you just use the old jar file, I don't
>>> feel like we are even close to that.
>>> * fix codec naming: i think its silly to name a codec "Standard" and
>>> use the codec header for backwards compatibility, easier to name the
>>> codec "Standard40" and just package this codec in the next release for
>>> backwards compatibility, e.g. if we want to introduce a new index
>>> format we make it "Standard42". This is just my opinion though, its
>>> not the only way to solve the index backwards compat here but I think
>>> its easiest.
>>> I have a ton more pet peeves, but I think these are the biggest. It
>>> probably sounds like a lot but I think its totally stupid to release
>>> 4.0 if we cannot "grow" the 4.x branch with 4.1, 4.2, etc while we
>>> work on 5.x. Otherwise we are just jumping from 4.0 to 5.0 and thats a
>>> sign we just shouldnt have released at all.
>>> --
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message