manifoldcf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Compatibility between 1.x and 2.0, and release plans going forward
Date Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:04:57 GMT
Hi Aeham,

The whole point of 2.0 was to allow us to REMOVE duplicate and deprecated
functionality.  We really can't go back on that, I'm afraid, or there would
be no point in having the 2.0 release in the first place.

As I said, the schema modifications are minor, but you would have to
rebuild the version strings of all documents in the ingeststatus table to
perform a real upgrade.  So this is not likely to be possible, unless
someone writes special connector-specific code to do this.

Karl

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Aeham Abushwashi <
aeham.abushwashi@exonar.com> wrote:

> 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