Hey Yonik, My personal experience with this is if you jump directly to 2.0, you'll have people wondering where 1.5, 1.6-->1.9 is in the CM system, and this would create some confusion unless it is documented well. This may warrant rethinking the tag structure a bit in SVN, or perhaps even the regular trunk structure at some point down the road. What's the SOLR versioning scheme by the way? Is it:
M.n Where M is the major version # Where n is the minor version # In this type of scheme, all n's in a series are expected to be at least backwards compatible with n-1 through 0-9, but all M+1's aren't necessarily compatible with M or M-1. We've used this approach in Nutch and Tika land for a while and it's been pretty successful. If this versioning scheme isn't documented somewhere, I'd be happy to throw up a page on the Wiki. Let me know and thanks. With the right documentation, the move from 1.4->2.0 will introduce less confusion, IMHO. Cheers, Chris On 11/19/09 6:31 AM, "Yonik Seeley" <yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: What should the next version of Solr be? Options: - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 2.9.x - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 3.x, with weaker back compat given all of the removed lucene deprecations from 2.9->3.0 - have a Solr 2.0 with a lucene 3.x -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
