@Mark: >> Okay, there's an escape hatch I (and someone else) mentioned on the list >> before. Adopting a fixed release cycle with small intervals between releases >> (compared to what we have now). Fixed - as in, releases are made each N >> months instead of when everyone feels they finished and polished up all >> their pet projects and there's nothing else exciting to do. That way we can >> keep the current policy, but deletion-through-deprecation approach will >> work, at last! > Thats a big change. I think its a nice idea, but I don't know how practical > it is. Most of us are basically volunteering time for this type of thing. > Even still, with the pace of development lately (and you can be sure that > the current pace is a *new* thing, Lucene did not always have this amount of > activity), it might make sense. You're missing the most important point. Fixed schedule means that the only reason not to do a release is the total abscence of changes. No matter how much or how few changes are released each time, fixed schedule gives you predictable lifecycle for all your deprecation/back-compat needs.
> But that idea needs a champion, and frankly > I don't have the time right now (it wouldn't likely be in my realm anyway). > And thats probably the deal with most others. They have work and/or other > itches that are higher priority than championing a big change. And here we got at one of the roots of the problem. The root that is going to stay. >> bq. Giving up is really not the answer though >> It is the answer. I have no moral right to hammer my ideals into heads >> that did tremendously more for the project, than I did. And maintaining a >> patch queue over Lucene trunk is not 'that' hard. > Its not about hammering your ideals - that almost feels like what you are > doing, but frankly, it doesn't help. If you even just keep prompting the > issue as it dies away you will likely keep progress going. There is a > solution that everyone will accept. I promise you that. Its more work than > it looks to find that solution and guide it to fruition though. Its fully > possible, and I'm sure it will happen eventually. Would have beat even money > that Mike had it a few weeks ago. No dice it looks though ;) I consciously took a bit of an extremist stance in hope to shift the mean. Okay, will try ditching it in favour of gently bugging people like Grant did in the comment that spawned this discussion. :) @Yonik: >> You go zealously for back-compat - you sacrifice readability/maintainability >> of your code but free users from any troubles when they want to 'simply >> upgrade'. You adopt more relaxed policy - you sacrifice users' time, but in >> return you gain cleaner codebase and new stuff can be written and used >> faster. > Not sure I agree with that - if changes become too easy you can get a > thrashing effect... change just because someone thought it was a > little better can lead to more chaos. You're right. I'm not advocating anarchy. :) But currently we are afraid to break anything at all, and that is as far away from juste milieu as the chaos you speak of. > IMO, changes to interfaces should be clearly better than what existed before. Recent changes to DISI? Were they clearly for the better? -- Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (ear...@gmail.com) Home / Mobile: +7 (495) 683-567-4 / +7 (903) 5-888-423 ICQ: 104465785 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
