Sorry, this is a bogus argument. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to upgrade.
When we have new major functionality, we should be able to issue new major releases, to hell with elasticsearch users. On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 4:19 AM Adrien Grand <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think we should discuss options when Project Panama is released. Doing > frequent major releases forces users to reindex more often. If Project Panama > was released shortly and we decided to release Lucene 10 immediately, this > would force users to reindex their 8.x data to be able to upgrade, I know of > many Elasticsearch users for whom it would cause headaches and I suspect that > it's no different for Solr users and many direct users of Lucene. I'd rather > look into publishing a MR JAR of bumping the minimum required Java version in > a minor release than releasing Lucene 10.0 less than 1 year after 9.0. > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 9:19 PM Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> In addition: we test for compatibility with Java 17 (both Lucene and Solr), >> so consumer is still able to use any version and has enough flexibility. >> >> Uwe >> >> Am 13. September 2021 18:52:53 UTC schrieb Dawid Weiss >> <[email protected]>: >>> >>> >>> I agree with Uwe and Robert. JDK11, then the min bar should move if there >>> is something that brings value (be it performance, LTS or some other >>> attractive option). >>> >>> Dawid >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:15 PM Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1, I think the main thing to watch out for is project panama. If we >>>> get a 18.x/19.x release with non-incubating APIs, I think it makes >>>> sense to create a new major Lucene version. Even if it isn't an >>>> OpenJDK LTS release. It could really change a lot, especially >>>> regarding hotspots in the code such as postings/dv compression. So it >>>> would be great to allow a lot of folks to make a "take two" on these >>>> algorithms with vectorization in mind. This is just my opinion. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:10 PM Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > There are no good reasons to do Java 17 and it is way too early. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Reagrding real optimizations, Lucene 17 is unfortunately not containing >>>> > Project Panama or Vector API, so it looks more like Java 18/19 is a good >>>> > candidate as a new minimum at a later stage. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > I’d release Lucene 9 with Java 11 (which is LTS) and then decide later >>>> > if we update to some post-17 version to get the new vector and panama >>>> > APIs (vector search, SIMD and also MMapDirectory v2). If we do this, we >>>> > should simply release Lucene 10. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Uwe >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ----- >>>> > >>>> > Uwe Schindler >>>> > >>>> > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen >>>> > >>>> > https://www.thetaphi.de >>>> > >>>> > eMail: [email protected] >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > From: Mike Drob <[email protected]> >>>> > Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 8:00 PM >>>> > To: Solr/Lucene Dev <[email protected]> >>>> > Subject: Java 11/17 Version Matrix >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Hi Devs, >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > What are our thoughts on Java 11 and 17 version compatibility going >>>> > forward for Lucene 9? Will we support both? If so, would Java 11 support >>>> > likely continue for the entire 9.x release line? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Is there a JIRA tracking this? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Thanks, >>>> > >>>> > Mike >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >> -- >> Uwe Schindler >> Achterdiek 19, 28357 Bremen >> https://www.thetaphi.de > > > > -- > Adrien --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
