On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Michael Busch <busch...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've mentioned it several times on java-dev and LUCENE-1698 that I'd like to > ask the user > community and nobody objected.
It's the old polling problem - how you ask influences the outcome (as I said below), and you didn't say exactly how you were going to ask before. >> The email reads like "we want to do this, OK?" - and the beneficiaries >> of what is a volunteer effort are likely to respond overwhelmingly >> "OK!". One could take the reverse position and probably get just as >> many positive responses. >> >> Devs should decide, and if feedback is needed to help that, a neutral >> way of asking should be used. >> > > Do you want to draft a new mail? Only if I was sure I wanted feedback :-) Which do you prefer as a back compatibility policy for Lucene: A) best effort drop-in back compatibility for minor version numbers (e.g. v3.5 will be compatible with v3.2) B) best effort drop-in back compatibility for the next minor version number only, and deprecations may be removed after one minor release (e.g. v3.3 will be compat with v3.2, but not v3.4) In either case forward index format compatibility would be maintained for an entire major version and the previous (e.g. v3.5 would be able to read an index written by v2.2) http://www.lucidimagination.com -Yonik --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
