lucene-solr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>
Subject Re: rough outline of where Solr's going
Date Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:57:30 GMT

On Mar 18, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:

> 
> : Sorry - I should have quoted it.
> : You cited user confusion, and I was giving an example of how it was
> : very easy to explain... an example of what I'd put in the release
> : notes to explain it.
> 
> Ahhh... sorry, yes i did in fact missunderstand that part.
> 
> : Jumping major releases is a really big, uncompatible deal anyway - it
> : seems like "user confusion" is a really big stretch.
> 
> It may be ... but it just seems like such a no brainer easy thing to avoid 
> at such little cost: 
> 
> Use 3.1 and developers in the know will understand that i's because we're 
> using LuceneJava 3.1; but uninformed users *might* be confused as to why 
> it jumped to a (seemingly) arbitrary number.
> 
> Use 2.0 and even the most uninformed user should "get" that this is a 
> major upgrade; developers will *still* know that we're using LUcene-java 
> 3.1.
> 

I don't see a compelling reason to go to 3.1.  It is going to be very confusing for users
("when did 3.0 come out?  Did I miss it?")   At least when MS Word jumped from 2.0 to 6.0
it wasn't to a "minor" version (i.e. 6.1).  2.0 seems reasonable, as does 1.5.  Although 2.0
would be a good reason to get rid of deprecations.  

-Grant
Mime
View raw message