[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8396?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15212537#comment-15212537
]
Shawn Heisey commented on SOLR-8396:
------------------------------------
bq. For users upgrading from versions < 6.0, there will be issues regardless.
There has to be a limit to the upgrade scenarios we are willing to support.
For users upgrading from 6.x with configs that they originally built for a
previous major release, whether their index is fully upgraded or not, problems
are to be expected. If we have to worry about supporting ancient
configurations, forward progress becomes difficult.
Another idea: Maybe the policy for deprecations in critical low-level
components like Field classes needs to be different than the general case --
kept around for two major releases rather than one. I'm not sure the Lucene
guys would like that, because for that deprecation policy in Solr to be
effective, it would need to extend to any Lucene components that the deprecated
Solr Field classes depend on. For a development library, that's a very
oppressive requirement.
> Investigate PointField to replace NumericField types
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-8396
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8396
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Ishan Chattopadhyaya
> Attachments: SOLR-8396.patch, SOLR-8396.patch
>
>
> In LUCENE-6917, [~mikemccand] mentioned that DimensionalValues are better
> than NumericFields in most respects. We should explore the benefits of using
> it in Solr and hence, if appropriate, switch over to using them.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
