Hi Patrick, Lucene 9.0 is supposed to be feature frozen, so in theory this change shouldn't make it to 9.0. That said, having it merged before 9.0 would help not have to carry over the backward compatibility logic in 10.x, so I'm inclined to allow merging it if you can get the change merged in the next couple of days while I'm focusing on the 8.7 release.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 6:57 PM Patrick Zhai <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Adrien, > I'm making a change that let taxonomy to use NumericDocValues instead of > term positions to store the parent array: > https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/420. > It'll also need to pass the backward compatibility check, so for me, it > seems it's better to keep it. And if I can make it work before the 9.0 > release then we can delete it after, and if not, we need a backward > compatibility test between 9 and 10 I guess? > > Best > Patrick > > Adrien Grand <[email protected]> 于2021年11月2日周二 上午10:41写道： > >> Thanks Gautam! >> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 6:36 PM Gautam Worah <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I think this makes sense. Lucene 9 continues to be backwards compatible >>> with Lucene 8. Lucene 10 will be able to read Lucene 9,10 taxonomy indexes. >>> LGTM! >>> >>> -- >>> Gautam Worah. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 6:09 AM Adrien Grand <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello here, >>>> >>>> As part of changing the version of the main branch from 9.0 to 10.0, I >>>> had to address some backward compatibility logic and tests. In particular, >>>> lucene/facet had a backward compatibility test for the taxonomy index due >>>> to the move from doc values to stored fields. >>>> >>>> I deleted this test, since we no longer use different approaches >>>> depending on the version that was used to create the taxonomy index. Please >>>> let me know if you disagree with this approach and I can work on >>>> resurrecting this test. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Adrien >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Adrien >> > -- Adrien
