On 4/14/2016 3:14 PM, Cassandra Targett wrote:
> The idea of a 5.5 addendum could work, but keep in mind the changes
> that have been made throughout the Guide for 6.0 aren't just adding a
> couple of pages for new features. There are numerous changes for
> default Solr behavior (i.e., Similarity, default to managed-schema, UI
> screenshots) that are essentially inline with content that was there
> before. That would all need to be backed out, or explained somehow.
> I'm not sure a single page that says "Hey, all that stuff you see
> everywhere about managed-schema being default, ignore that" is going
> to be all that helpful.

My addendum idea was a separate document, likely one or two pages, with
the title "Documentation changes since 5.5".

Given historical precedent after a new major release, and the
difficulties with the reference guide, I'm not sure that it makes sense
to have a Solr 5.6 release at all.  I've just had a look at
lucene/CHANGES.txt and solr/CHANGES.txt in branch_5x.  The Lucene file
doesn't even have a 5.6 section.  For Solr, there are only three entries
in 5.6, and from my point of view, that list does not look important
enough for a release.  I would not stand in the way of a 5.6 release,
especially if somebody can find a compelling new feature that can be
backported to 5x and tested easily ... but I don't think that's going to
happen.

We will be getting a lot of bugfixes in 5.5.1, and just like 4.10.x,
anything critical discovered later can go in future 5.5 point releases.

Side note:  In branch_5_5, there are two entries in the 5.5.1 section of
lucene/CHANGES.txt, but the entire section is missing from branch_5x. 
There are also discrepancies in the solr/CHANGES.txt 5.5.1 section when
comparing these branches.  Historically in SVN, branch_5x would have
been entirely deleted when branch_6x was created, but since we are
keeping it around now, should I fix those differences?

Thanks,
Shawn


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to