What will be w/ generics? Won't they break cack-compat as soon as we add
them (e.g., if we move to accepting parameters as generics - it may break an
application which does not use generics yet). I think that the move to 1.5
needs to include the generics as well, unless we're willing to break
back-compat later on.

Shai

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Michael McCandless wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Mark Miller<markrmil...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I forgot about this oddity. Its so weird. Its like we are doing two
> >> releases on top of each other - it just seems confusing.
> >>
> >
> > I'm also not wed to the "fast turnaround" (remove deprecations, switch
> > to generics) 3.0 release.
> >
> > We could, instead, take out time doing the 3.0 release, ie let it
> > include new features too.
> >
> > I thought I had read a motivation for the 1.9 -> 2.0 fast turnaround,
> > but I can't remember it nor find it now...
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> I thought the motivation was to provide a clean upgrade path with the
> deprecations - you move to 2.9 and move from all the deprecated methods
> - then you move to 3.0 and your good with no deprecations. I'd guess the
> worry is that new features in 3.0 would add new deprecations and its not
> quite so clean?
>
> Personally, I think thats fine though. New deprecations will come in 3.1
> anyway. You can still move everything in 2.9, and then move to 3.0 - so
> what if something else is now deprecated? You can move again or wait for
> 3.9 to move ...
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Reply via email to