Increasing the scope/duration of backwards compatibility index support across the board adds a big taxation and risk on ongoing development. It's hard enough just supporting N-1 major release written indices.
Or are we talking about the "best effort" (e.g. sandbox Codecs) that I think Simon pursued a while back? Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 4:39 PM Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote: > I'm actually only considering support for 8x+ but I think the default > codec, used by most users, should allow for 7x indexes to be read by 9x. If > we can do this for 8x+ i.e. indexes generated with 8x being supported by 10 > would be a good starting point as well. > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 1:23 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < > ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1, we should definitely give this a try. Do you have any particular >> version combinations in mind that don't work for users now? On my end, I >> see Solr 8x users who would love to use Solr 9x, but with Lucene 8x indexes >> (previously upgraded from Lucene 7x). >> >> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 at 23:17, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> At Buzzwords and Community Over Code this last month, the topic of >>> supporting indexes for over 2 versions came up. >>> >>> While there are times that require breaking compatibility, I think it >>> would be really useful to support the indexes especially if you use a codec >>> that doesn't have a breaking change. This would be extremely useful for >>> users and would allow them to upgrade without the need to plan for complete >>> reindexing. >>> >>> What do other folks think? >>> >>> -- >>> Anshum Gupta >>> >> > > -- > Anshum Gupta >
