Hi Talat See http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nutch-user/201408.mbox/%3cd025dc24.1793f7%[email protected]%3E for some background.
Julien On 1 September 2014 14:25, Talat Uyarer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Sorry I was away while a long time. I could miss some talks. If it is > that, please notice me. But I wonder Why do you consider our version > numbering. Why do you continue 1.10 for next release of 1.9 ? IMHO 2.x > branch is online version of Nutch 1.x. If they has some feature > differences, this is our mistake. I will try to close this difference > between 1.x with 2.x > > "Changing to 3.x would imply a major change of architecture or > functionality, which certainly won't be the case for the next release of > the trunk. " I agree with Julien. > > IMHO Opinion We do not need any changes. > > Talat > > > 2014-09-01 12:23 GMT+03:00 Julien Nioche <[email protected]>: > > Hi chaps, >> >> -1 from me. IMHO moving the trunk code to 3.x does not really solve the >> issue. I'd rather make it more explicit that the standard Nutch (1.x) and >> Nutch-GORA (2.x) are two separate beasts for instance by referring to 2.x >> as Nutch-GORA in the artifacts we release. This way users won't assume >> believe that one is superior to the other. We can keep the same SVN >> branches (trunk + 2.x) and use the minor version numbers as a reflection of >> the amount of changes produced in the code. >> >> Changing to 3.x would imply a major change of architecture or >> functionality, which certainly won't be the case for the next release of >> the trunk. When users ask "what is the difference between 3.x and 1.x?" >> we'd have to answer "not much", and more importantly when asked "what is >> the difference between 3.x and 2.x?" we'd reply "same as between 1.x and >> 2.x" ;-) Changing the name of the artefacts would clarify things. >> >> This reminds me that our FAQ does not really answer these questions (and >> other basic ones), will post about this separately. >> >> Julien >> >> >> >> >> On 29 August 2014 17:34, Lewis John Mcgibbney <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Chris, >>> >>> N.B. move to dev@ >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:40 AM, <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1, great. >>>> >>>> I'd like to have a conversation about versioning. >>>> >>>> Since we're at 1.9, my suggestion would be to have the >>>> next in the trunk series (1.x) move to version 3.x post >>>> 1.9 for the release. >>>> >>> >>> Based on the discussion from which this new thread stems I would totally >>> be behind this. It breathes new life into trunk. Which is a bonnie feather >>> in the Nutch bonnet. Here is my +1 on that one. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Nutch2 remains Nutch and can be worked on there. That >>>> would give us a nice split in the diversionary branch >>>> paths for Nutch. >>>> >>>> >>> +1 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering >> >> http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/ >> http://www.digitalpebble.com >> http://twitter.com/digitalpebble >> > > > > -- > Talat UYARER > Websitesi: http://talat.uyarer.com > Twitter: http://twitter.com/talatuyarer > Linkedin: http://tr.linkedin.com/pub/talat-uyarer/10/142/304 > -- Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/ http://www.digitalpebble.com http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
