: > So, in hindsight, the acronym/host setting for StandardAnalyzer really : > should have defaulted to "true", meaning the bug is fixed, but users who : > somehow depend on the bug (which should be a tiny minority) have an avenue : > (setReplaceInvalidAcronym) to keep back compatibility if needed even on a : > minor release, right? I agree. (And so in 2.4 we should fix the default to : > true?).
: > I think for such issues where it's a very minor break in backwards : > compatibility, we should make the break, and very carefully document this in : > the "Changes in runtime behavior" section, even within a minor release. I : > don't think such changes should drive us to a major release. : +1 I've made some verbage changes to BackwardsCompatibility to document that we may in fact make runtime behavior hcanges which are not strictly "backwards compatible" and what commitments we have to lettings users force the old behavior if we make a change like this in a minor release. most of this verbage is just me making stuff up based on this thread ... it is absolutely open for discussion (and editing by people with more grammer sense then me)... http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/BackwardsCompatibility -Hoss --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
