lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erdinc Yilmazel <erdincyilma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal for changing Lucene's backwards-compatibility policy
Date Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:48:59 GMT
I'd go with B. I never do drop-in replacement of a jar even if it is a minor
release for any library. I always recompile. I think the major version
number shouldn't be changed unless there are lots of API changes or changes
in the index format.


On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jukka Zitting wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Danil Ε’ORIN <torindan@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> What about creating major version more often?
> >>
> >
> > +1 We're not going to run out of version numbers, so I don't see a
> > reason not to upgrade the major version number when making
> > backwards-incompatible changes.
> >
> > BR,
> >
> > Jukka Zitting
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> For what its worth, I agree with you guys. Less confusion in upgrading :)
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message