> * 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?
I don't like to chime in about these things because I don't really care too much, but it seemed like (for the last several months), 2.9 was going to be on Java 1.4, then 3.0 would include deprectations (maybe bug fixes). Then 3.1 was going to have some new functionality. On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Michael McCandless<luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
