lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otis Gospodnetic <otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development
Date Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:06:16 GMT
----- Original Message ----

> From: Bill Au <bill.w.au@gmail.com>
> To: general@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 11:29:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development
> 
> In the case where changes are in Lucene only I think it is OK to increment
> the Solr release number since even though the Solr jars are unchanged
> because the new release of Solr will contain the new Lucene  jars.  But what
> about the case where changes are in Solr only?  Would we still increment the
> Lucene release number even though everything in the Lucene download is the
> same as before?

I don't think Lucene version would change in this case.

Why do/should release numbers have to remain in sync?  I missed that part...

Otis


> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
> 
> > On 3/3/10 6:00 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Michael Busch  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> So if it seems like that most people are concerned about releases (even
> >>>
> >>> those you are generally in favor of this proposal), then maybe we should
> >>> discuss exactly this point. We haven't really discussed alternatives
> >>> about
> >>> the release alignment. This vote feels rushed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> It's been discussed for a week, and I'm with Mark - I'm only for a
> >> real merge of development, and that includes release schedules.
> >>
> >> -Yonik
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > How will we merge release policies? (or are they exactly the same?) Does
> > Solr use the same release numbering? Does it have the same
> > backwards-compatibility requirements as Lucene?
> >
> > If we release Solr 1.5.0 with Lucene 3.1.0, and we find a bug in the Lucene
> > jar and want to release a 3.1.1 bugfix release, will we also release a Solr
> > 1.5.1, even though all Solr jars would be identical to the 1.5.0?
> > Or will we just release Solr/Lucene 4.0.0 next and always use same release
> > numbers?
> >
> > How will we avoid longer release cycles? Solr had had very infrequent
> > releases. What were the reasons for that? Are we comfortable with saying
> > we'll just try to be disciplined enough or is there a way to somehow enforce
> > release frequency? It seems certain that if more people work on the code,
> > there will at any given point be more patches/new features under development
> > and things need to be coordinated in a way that allows frequent releases.
> >
> > In an earlier mail I gave the following example: If we had a separate
> > analyzer module, and we add an analyzer in a new language to it, it would be
> > cool to release it soon, without having to wait until Lucene/Solr are ready
> > for a release. The pace here can be faster, because I imagine in such an
> > Analyzer module it's much less common that a patch "touches everything".
> > What do people think about this? Maybe it's just a nice wish, but not
> > realizable, because there'd be a lot of version management overhead. But
> > maybe not?
> >
> > I'm not against this whole thing and I'm not trying to be difficult here,
> > and I dislike endless discussions just as everyone else. But I honestly
> > don't know right now how to vote, because I have those open questions and
> > know that a lot of other people here are concerned about the release
> > alignment as well.
> >
> >  Michael
> >
> >


Mime
View raw message