My opinions inline: On Jul 23, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> Hello, > > We released the 4.0-alpha at the beginning of the month, I think its > time we start figuring out what/when the beta should be. > > What: > Originally one proposal was that the 4.0-beta would offer some > additional guarantees (such as keeping API backwards compatibility / > config-file backwards compatibility). > We should think about exactly what this means: > 1. does it make sense to guarantee API backwards compatibility for Solr? I think for the HTTP API's yes - we should try and provide the same level of support as a full release. For the java API's, since we have always been more flexible there with Solr even with full releases, I think we should remain so. > 2. what about the fact so many Lucene apis are @experimental anyway? Yeah, you'd hope we would be able to start dropping some of those experimental warnings. We should review some that have had that for a long time. > 3. what about the fact that if we offer API+config file backwards, > then that means all we can do in 4.0-final is fix bugs (we could just > as easily do that in a 4.0.1). That's a point - I've got some important hanging chads I'm trying to plow through myself though. I could really use the extra couple weeks regardless - I want to make sure 4 is really smooth for the stuff I have. That's just me and where I am though. You could still make an argument to go GA now and follow up in 4.1 - I just want to make sure 4 makes a great first impression - and those couple extra weeks will mean a lot to me in doing that. You could say that always, but I've just kind of planned on having that time given the proposed schedule FWIW. Approx mid August for 4 final would be golden for me :) I've got a lot of doc to write :) > 4. on the other hand if we make the caveats too crazy complicated, > nobody will really understand it. > > When: > Currently it seems like there is a fair amount of good feedback and > bugs getting fixed. I don't want to get in the way of that. But I > think a lot of this depends on "What". If we commit to a real > API/config-file backwards compatibility just like a normal release > then I think its a really big commitment and just going to take > longer. One idea is to offer less guarantees to get a beta out faster. I like that idea - I think we should phrase much like the alpha, but more :) Here are the promises, we are going to try even hard not to break anything in a wider area though - no guarantees if the problem is bad enough, but stronger guarantees than you had with Alpha. Normal release promises may have to be broken (just like sometimes on real releases actually) - but only after careful consideration about the benefits vs user interruption - not willy nilly. Lets get it out very soon and then perhaps it can be a short cycle and we can perhaps even 4 in mid to late August? > > Thanks > > -- > lucidimagination.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > - Mark Miller lucidimagination.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
