Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of serera@gmail.com designates
 209.85.160.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2031DEA1BB824AB686B4174BAF3C2C29@sv.us.sonicwall.com>
References: <D24CE183F3B14813875F15FBF0265391@sv.us.sonicwall.com>
	<CALfq-2TB_3JF8Up2yAUww3vPkt=P6VQMFoa=6DzvaJGBNF6uTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<2031DEA1BB824AB686B4174BAF3C2C29@sv.us.sonicwall.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:37:16 +0300
Message-ID: 
 <CALfq-2QT6z8jKqq-rnAyNAo=5ZH18oVFWeLPkdwYyJtB7Yv0kQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Upgrade to 3.6 OR wait for 4.0
From: Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb20532b65fe904c474cc64

--e89a8fb20532b65fe904c474cc64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I have to use stable versions too, and that's why I delayed upgrading my
code until 4.0-ALPHA was out. Since I don't have any problems with API
breaks, i.e. I'm only concerned with index format back-compat, 4.0-ALPHA to
me was stable.

If you require both index format + stable API, then wait for 4.0-BETA.

4.0 will probably include more hardening to the code after 4.0-BETA, which
means likely bug fixes and such. If that is your definition of 'stable'
then wait for it.

As for timelines, I have no idea :). It took nearly a year to stabilize the
code enough (and index format) for 4.0-ALPHA to be released. I hope that
4.0-BETA and 4.0.0 won't be long from now :)

Shai

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Ganesh <emailgane@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

> Thanks for the reply. Any idea how much time it would take to go for 4.0
> stable release? I want to go for v4.0 but i have to use only the stable
> version.
>
> Regards
> Ganesh
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shai Erera" <serera@gmail.com>
> To: <java-user@lucene.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Upgrade to 3.6 OR wait for 4.0
>
>
> > Hi Ganesh
> >
> > I recently upgraded my code to 3.6, and yesterday finished part of my
> > upgrades to 4.0-ALPHA.
> >
> > Upgrading from 3.0.3 to 3.6 is relatively easy as all API should be
> > backwards compatible. But I think there were some API breaks, and
> > back-compat issues. Therefore, if I were you, I'd first upgrade from
> 3.0.3
> > to 3.6, resolving all 'deprecated' API warnings and making sure the
> > back-compat issues do not affect me (or resolve them too !).
> >
> > Then, I'd upgrade to 4.0-ALPHA. A lot of API has been changed, and so
> most
> > likely you'll need to touch large parts of your code again.
> >
> > Going this route, you gain all the new features and enhancements of 3.6,
> > while knowing that you run on a 'stable' Lucene version. Upgrading to
> > 4.0-ALPHA comes with even more gains, but this release will probably go
> > under some API changes (API is expected to freeze in BETA), though the
> > index format is not going to change in incompatible ways (unless there's
> a
> > bug ... you can read the release notes), so depending on how much you
> want
> > to risk doing the upgrade for a still 'work in progress' code.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Shai
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Ganesh <emailgane@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> I am currently using v3.0.3 and planning to upgrade to v3.6. Shall i go
> >> ahead with the upgrade OR wait for 4.0?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Ganesh
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

--e89a8fb20532b65fe904c474cc64--