Mailing-List: contact solr-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of ryantxu@gmail.com designates
 209.85.218.222 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references
         :x-mailer;
        b=u+bCNOcJX18NQHdM3fL+X9bLaG2lVS042877osYbowgpMzMKitntVYT3UOIkIoLaqe
         DzBE4iOSdVZMm09g7A/nyjtDdVmQ9B+XBjuOBi3xW+ewEsVbfW0VusXGw9bIyuwH5ZQY
         eYswR5TyZ5X6Ek5JbenSpwUxuZNKY+CIj5ibw=
Cc: "yonik@lucidimagination.com" <yonik@lucidimagination.com>
Message-Id: <3BDF6C99-D22D-4B53-8DE0-61B45613871F@gmail.com>
From: Ryan McKinley <ryantxu@gmail.com>
To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0911251124490.6754@radix.cryptio.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Subject: Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0?
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:54:52 -0800
References: <C7306A04.6C674%Chris.A.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0911251124490.6754@radix.cryptio.net>


On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:30 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote:

>
> : > The point being: it's all been very informat up to now -- and  
> that's
> : > probably for the best.  "policies" should evolve over time based  
> on real
> : > world situations that come up, and we're still in the process of  
> doing
> : > that.
> :
> : Agreed, but now that the elephant has been identified in the room,  
> let's
> : come up with a policy then. What are your thoughts on my proposal  
> (specified
> : earlier in this thread)?
>
> The elephant has been identified, and he's in the room, but he's in  
> the
> far corner and he's not bothering anybody.
>
> my personal preference (at the moment) is to leave things undefined  
> for
> now ... i'd rather see us get to a point where we say "whoa, here is  
> an
> actaul in the flesh cross roads where it feels wrong to release w/o
> bumping the major version" and then to try and write down a policy  
> ahead
> of time anticipating what that cross road is and how we we'll want  
> to deal
> with it.
>
> if it's unspecified, it can be specified later when it actaully  
> becomes an
> issue -- if it's specified, then people will feel like we are  
> beholden to
> the specification, even if it doesn't wind up making as much sense in
> practice.
>
> (yonik: you're anarchist ways clearly rubbed off on me at apachecon)
>

I agree with keeping it informal (for now)

I agree with Mark that yes, we should do what we can to make the best  
choices about changes that affect compatibility.  For sure.

The thing about the 1.5/1.9/2.0 question that makes me uncomfortable  
is that it is applying the same 'official' rules from lucene to solr.   
I am not sure how well that maps in practice.  What would a 1.9  
release mean in solr?  (I don't really want an answer, I just don't  
think it means the same thing in solr vs lucene)

Again, i have nothing against calling the next release 2.0 -- I just  
think that 1.5 is also fine and keeps the door open for 2.0 to be a  
more fundamental change in solr (that may or may not happen)

ryan