Hi all, Sorry I was away while a long time. I could miss some talks. If it is that, please notice me. But I wonder Why do you consider our version numbering. Why do you continue 1.10 for next release of 1.9 ? IMHO 2.x branch is online version of Nutch 1.x. If they has some feature differences, this is our mistake. I will try to close this difference between 1.x with 2.x
"Changing to 3.x would imply a major change of architecture or functionality, which certainly won't be the case for the next release of the trunk. " I agree with Julien. IMHO Opinion We do not need any changes. Talat 2014-09-01 12:23 GMT+03:00 Julien Nioche <[email protected]>: > Hi chaps, > > -1 from me. IMHO moving the trunk code to 3.x does not really solve the > issue. I'd rather make it more explicit that the standard Nutch (1.x) and > Nutch-GORA (2.x) are two separate beasts for instance by referring to 2.x > as Nutch-GORA in the artifacts we release. This way users won't assume > believe that one is superior to the other. We can keep the same SVN > branches (trunk + 2.x) and use the minor version numbers as a reflection of > the amount of changes produced in the code. > > Changing to 3.x would imply a major change of architecture or > functionality, which certainly won't be the case for the next release of > the trunk. When users ask "what is the difference between 3.x and 1.x?" > we'd have to answer "not much", and more importantly when asked "what is > the difference between 3.x and 2.x?" we'd reply "same as between 1.x and > 2.x" ;-) Changing the name of the artefacts would clarify things. > > This reminds me that our FAQ does not really answer these questions (and > other basic ones), will post about this separately. > > Julien > > > > > On 29 August 2014 17:34, Lewis John Mcgibbney <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Chris, >> >> N.B. move to dev@ >> >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:40 AM, <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> +1, great. >>> >>> I'd like to have a conversation about versioning. >>> >>> Since we're at 1.9, my suggestion would be to have the >>> next in the trunk series (1.x) move to version 3.x post >>> 1.9 for the release. >>> >> >> Based on the discussion from which this new thread stems I would totally >> be behind this. It breathes new life into trunk. Which is a bonnie feather >> in the Nutch bonnet. Here is my +1 on that one. >> >> >>> >>> Nutch2 remains Nutch and can be worked on there. That >>> would give us a nice split in the diversionary branch >>> paths for Nutch. >>> >>> >> +1 >> > > > > -- > > Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering > > http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/ > http://www.digitalpebble.com > http://twitter.com/digitalpebble > -- Talat UYARER Websitesi: http://talat.uyarer.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/talatuyarer Linkedin: http://tr.linkedin.com/pub/talat-uyarer/10/142/304
