Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Hostetter <hossman_lucene@fucit.org>
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache Lucene Java 2.9.3 and 3.0.2 artifacts to be
 released
In-Reply-To: <007c01cb0957$2d300e80$87902b80$@thetaphi.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1006110925520.12178@radix.cryptio.net>
References: <002101cb0654$feec9c50$fcc5d4f0$@thetaphi.de>
 <008701cb0701$6ddec9b0$499c5d10$@thetaphi.de>
 <AANLkTilwqAyBG51SeRkExjeS5OcPFKSCKsvAWe4tLqXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <008c01cb0708$46b7bb10$d4273130$@thetaphi.de>
 <AANLkTil1iPbIoo8tnuPqW71zwjDoLQDqUw_p97hbI8W3@mail.gmail.com>
 <007c01cb0957$2d300e80$87902b80$@thetaphi.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


FWIW: I have not had a chance to review the RC, but....

: Simon and me decided, that we want to have LUCENE-2494 (Modify
: ParallelMultiSearcher to use a CompletionService instead of slowly polling
: for results) inside Lucene Java 3.0.2. This is an significant performance
: improvement. It will not go to 2.9.3, as its Java 1.5 only.

...this doesn't make senes to me.  even if this is a rock solid patch, if 
it's a performance improvement then presumably it's not a bug fix -- in 
which case it seems like it should wait for a feature release.

maybe i'm just missunederstanding the nature of hte issue -- but the goal 
of bug fix releases should be to fix known bugs that prevent existing 
client code from functioning, while minimizing the risk of introducing new 
bugs in existing code that already functions -- making performance 
iprovements to code that is currently functional risks introducing bugs.


-Hoss