On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Robert Muir<rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > But isn't it also true it could be a bit more than no-op: > 1) changing to "better" defaults in cases where back compat prevents > this. I think I remember a few of these? > 2) bugfixes found after release of 2.9 > 3) performance improvements, not just from #1 but also from removal of > back-compat shims (i.e. tokenstream reflection)
Sorry, right, there are some defaults we will change. We may get bugfixes in, but if it's truly a "fast turnaround release", I think there wouldn't be that many bug fixes. And I agree on performance improvements for cases where the back compat emulation code was hurting performance. It seems like we have two questions: * Do we label the next release 2.9 or 3.0? * After that next release, do we do a "fast turnaround" release or a more normal "take your time and do real work" release? Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
