I’ve worked on commercial libraries, and the releases were limited to the oldest JVM that our big customers were using. Some customers were much more conservative (or lazy) than I imagined.
I just sent out an e-mail about planning for the JDK 8 upgrade and got some skepticism in reply. In a profit making business, the choice between the latest Java and something that brings in revenue is a pretty easy choice. Sure, take trunk forwards, but if you want Lucene to be widely used, the releases need to be conservative about Java versions. wunder Walter Underwood [email protected] http://observer.wunderwood.org/ On Sep 12, 2014, at 7:23 PM, Yonik Seeley <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Ryan Ernst <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think the question here is, should trunk be the "blazing forefront of >> development?" > > Even if the answer is "yes", In what dimensions though? Blazing > forefront of lucene/solr need not be blazing forefront of Java or of > different operating systems, or switching to entirely different > languages, etc. The minimum JVM requirement is an orthogonal > decision. > > And I just met with some folks the other day that can't yet upgrade to Java > 1.7. > The practical considerations of what users can use (say we were to > release 5.0 in a few months) and the development pain of further > diverging trunk and 4x need to be weighed against the language/library > features that a new JVM version bring. > > -Yonik > http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions, > sub-facets, off-heap data > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
