Just to toss in my two cents...
I'd have to agree with Hoss here. In terms of versioning, I see no
reason that a major version bump in a dependency should cause a major
version bump in Solr - unless said bump causes major changes. I
haven't really looked at what's planned for Lucene 3.x yet, but if
there are some major api breaking changes coming, then perhaps the
next couple 1.x revisions should be taken to start cleaning up and
preparing for a major version bump. So, I would agree that, unless
there's a really compelling reason to switch to Lucene 3.x, it might
be best let a little dust settle on 2.9.
-Colin
On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:48 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: What should the next version of Solr be?
personally, the way the question is phrased bothers me -- it feels
like
the cart leading the horse.
I think the better questions to ask are...
Q1. should we actively try to upgrade to Lucene 3.x, or should we
wait
for some demonstrated need/advantage (ie: new functionality, improved
performance)
Q2. If/when Solr trunk is switched to use Lucene 3.x, what should the
subsequent Solr release be called? -- ie should a major version bump
in
the Lucene dependency trigger a major version bump in the Solr
version?
My opinions would be...
A1. keep using 2.9.x until 3.x offers something that makes it worth
switching for (but we can always start removing usage of deprecated
APIs
that don't require changign our own APIs)
A2. when we do finally move to Lucene 3.0, it would probably make
sense
to bump the Solr version number to 2.0 since we will likely be
changing/breaking a lot of plugin APIs in non trivial ways. If we
somehoe
manage it w/o breaking a lot of existing APIs, then i see no reason to
bump our major version number.
-Hoss
Active Media Architects, Inc.
World Class Design, Programming & Strategy - Since 1998
http://www.activema.com
1-888-392-4567 toll free
1-586-445-1000 local
1-586-445-2247 fax
