I agree with Grant and would prefer to see 3.0 to seeing 4.0 (down with inflation!) Otis
-- Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch ----- Original Message ---- From: Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 4:05:54 PM Subject: Re: Going to Java 5. Was: Re: A bit of planning All it takes is one line in the announcement saying "Version 3.0 uses Java 1.5" I don't think the significance will be lost on anyone. Everyone knows what Java 1.5 is. I'm -1 on calling it 4.0. People will then ask where is 3.0. I am +1 for sticking w/ the plan we voted for as described on http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/Java_1%2e5_Migration (last edited 10/1/2007) It's not like we are springing this on anyone. In fact, I'd be more than happy to announce it on the user list to let people know ahead of time. On Mar 10, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Doron Cohen wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:21 PM, DM Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Grant Ingersoll wrote: >>> We voted to make 3.0 Java 1.5, full well knowing that it will break >>> the back compat. requirements. I don't see the point of >>> postponing it >>> or dragging it out. >> >> I thought his suggestion was to skip 3.0 as a designator and >> instead use >> 4.0. If so, the schedule would not change. >> > > Right, that's what I meant: > * 2.9 with deprecations, > * 3.0 removing deprecated stuff but still Java 1.4, > * 4.0 first Java 5 version > But I am catching up now a looong list of discussions and missed > this vote, so I am ok with taking this back and proceed as voted. > - Doron --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
