lucene-solr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan McKinley <>
Subject Re: rough outline of where Solr's going
Date Mon, 22 Mar 2010 03:54:31 GMT
> 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.

I agree.  2.0 or 1.5 makes the most sense.

(In the past I suggested we may not be at 2.0 yet... but with all the
internal re-jiggering, I now think 2.0 would be best).

Locking the solr major number to lucene major number does not make any
sense to me.  Say there were a major change to solr (for argument
sake, perhaps it gets in bed with spring), but there is no major
change in lucene...  then what?

View raw message