manifoldcf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aeham Abushwashi <aeham.abushwa...@exonar.com>
Subject Re: Compatibility between 1.x and 2.0, and release plans going forward
Date Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:59:37 GMT
Thanks for the quick response.

Hand upgrading configuration tables could be an option for us, but my
biggest concern is the upgrade (or lack of) for the big tables, namely
jobqueue and ingeststatus. If that requires our customers re-ingesting
everything that had been previously crawled, we'd have a problem.

This is not an pressing issue because we have no immediate plans to move to
2.0 but an item for our med-to-long term roadmap.

Regards,
Aeham

On 13 October 2014 11:16, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Aeham,
>
> My suggestion to you is to stay on 1.x.  Upgrade to 1.7.1, and to 1.8 when
> it is released.  We've committed to supporting 1.x for as long as
> necessary.
>
> The schema will indeed change, and will not change in a manner where a
> straightforward upgrade is possible, because (for example) the Forced
> Metadata built in tab goes away entirely, as does the corresponding column
> in the IngestStatus table.  In some circumstances, a hand upgrade might be
> possible, but in other cases you will probably not be able to do it,
> because the contents of the fields would need to be altered in a
> non-obvious manner.
>
> Thanks,
> Karl
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Aeham Abushwashi <
> aeham.abushwashi@exonar.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Karl,
> >
> > What are your plans regarding database schema compatibility? If I have
> 10s
> > of millions of items already ingested and recorded in PostgreSQL (MCF
> > 1.6.x), what would my 2.0 upgrade options be:
> > 1. Database schema remains intact and existing crawls continue running
> > 2. Perform a schema upgrade using a supplied script before crawls can
> > continue
> > 3. Entire data set has to be re-ingested
> > 4. Other?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Aeham
> >
> > On 9 October 2014 09:20, Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > As you may recall, at the end of the 1.7 release cycle, there was a
> show
> > of
> > > hands as to whether 2.0 should be the next ManifoldCF release, and
> > whether
> > > that should break backwards compatibility.  There were only positive
> > > comments for that plan, so that is what we adopted.
> > >
> > > It's come to my attention that there are some folks in the community
> that
> > > were unaware of that discussion, or are having some second thoughts.
> > Just
> > > to be clear on the release policy as it currently stands, here it is:
> > >
> > > (1) ManifoldCF 2.x development is currently taking place on trunk.
> > > ManifoldCF 1.x development is taking place on branches/dev_1x.
> > >
> > > (2) There is a 2.0 release scheduled for December 31, 2014.
> Heretofore,
> > I
> > > had not scheduled a 1.8 release, but we may decide to do that release
> in
> > > the same time frame as well.
> > >
> > > (3) All ManifoldCF 1.x future releases will remain backwards compatible
> > > with all earlier versions of ManifoldCF.  ManifoldCF 1.7, for instance,
> > is
> > > (supposedly) completely backwards compatible with 1.6, 1.5, etc.
> > >
> > > (4) ManifoldCF 2.0 is NOT backwards-compatible with 1.x.  Future 2.x
> > > releases, though, will be backwards-compatible with 2.0 etc.
> > >
> > > I see no reason why we would stop supporting ManifoldCF 1.x at this
> time;
> > > indeed, I would expect there to be further releases of the 1.x branch
> for
> > > maybe even a year or more.  The upgrade strategy I would recommend is
> as
> > > follows:
> > >
> > > (1) New users should go with MCF 2.0 (after it has been released).
> > > (2) Existing users should consider upgrading to MCF 2.0 ONLY if they
> > have a
> > > good reason to do so, such as new functionality that is only present in
> > > 2.x.  Eventually, we will stop developing 1.x, but that's quite some
> time
> > > in the future.
> > >
> > > During the MCF 2.0 development cycle, I've been trying to make sure
> that
> > > the dev_1x branch includes all important changes that don't rely on MCF
> > > 2.0-specific constructions.  So the next dev_1x release will be quite
> > rich,
> > > as well as remaining backwards compatible.  If you have specific 2.0
> > > features that you think may _not_ have made it to 1.x, please post
> about
> > > it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Also, when should we release MCF 1.8?  I think releasing at about the
> > same
> > > time as MCF 2.0 makes the most sense, but will be a lot of release
> work.
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Karl
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message