Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-pylucene-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 7290 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2011 22:33:16 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Apr 2011 22:33:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 76848 invoked by uid 500); 6 Apr 2011 22:33:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-pylucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 76827 invoked by uid 500); 6 Apr 2011 22:33:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact pylucene-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: pylucene-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list pylucene-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 76818 invoked by uid 99); 6 Apr 2011 22:33:16 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:33:16 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of janssen@parc.com designates 13.1.64.93 as permitted sender) Received: from [13.1.64.93] (HELO alpha.xerox.com) (13.1.64.93) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:33:09 +0000 Received: from parc.com ([13.1.102.103]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <188651(1)>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 15:32:41 PDT cc: pylucene-dev@lucene.apache.org To: To: Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release PyLucene 3.1.0 In-reply-to: References: <32813.1302105827@parc.com> <42256.1302123927@parc.com> Comments: In-reply-to Andi Vajda message dated "Wed, 06 Apr 2011 14:16:11 -0700." Cc: janssen@parc.com X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3; GNU Emacs 23.1.90 Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 15:32:41 PDT Message-ID: <43993.1302129161@parc.com> From: Bill Janssen Andi Vajda wrote: > Unless I'm missing something here, you've got two options before you > break your users: > 1. fix your code before you ship it to them Unfortunately, the code is out there for building, and the instructions, also already out there, say, "PyLucene 2.4 to 3.X". I should be more careful :-). > 2. don't upgrade It's the users that upgrade, not me. > Yes, you could say that the same applies to PyLucene, of course :-) :-) > I'm not exactly sure what kind of backwards compat promises Lucene > Java made going from 3.0 to 3.1 but the new QueryParser method > overloads and the fact that there is no support for method overloads > in Python make PythonQueryParser a bit stuck between a rock and a hard > place. If you see a better way to fix the mess with the _quoted and > _slop variants for getFieldQuery, a patch is welcome. Sure. Bill