I don't mean to stir the ocean again, but I think it all boils down to this jar drop-in ability. If someone plans to upgrade to 2.9 by just dropping in a jar, then I'd like to hear of that someone who succeeded. 2.9 already contains back-compat breaks. So that someone must be using Lucene is such a basic way, that I find it hard to imagine that someone would upgrade to 2.9 at all (I don't recall any serious bugs that were fixed).
Other than that, like was said on this thread several times already, anyone who upgrades to 2.9 (I use anyone inclusively) will probably clean his code from all "deprecated" warnings and move to use the new API, because otherwise he'll need to do it in 3.0. And for all those people, 3.0 would just be a 1.5 upgrade, and I'd bet people out there already on 1.5 would want to take advantage of the new API w/ generics, so that means another code change? I don't care too much, because I'll probably update my code after every Lucene release. This is just to save some work for the RMs, and reduce the confusion around the community (e.g., someone who already plans to change his code anyway might decide to wait for 3.0 and do a major code update to his application). My two cents, Shai On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 01:46:35PM -0400, Michael McCandless wrote: > > > Right, that is and has been the "plan" for 2.9/3.0/3.1 for quite some > time. > > > > We are now discussing whether to change the plan, but so far it looks > > likely we'll just stick with it... > > It seems like breaking the promise would be disruptive now. But you have > an > opportunity to change the policy at 3.0, affecting 3.9 and 4.0. > > That's a 3.0 issue, though -- not a 2.9 issue. > > Marvin Humphrey > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
