2.9 has *not* the same format as 3.0, an index created with 3.0 cannot be read with 2.9. This is because compressed field support was removed and therefore the version number of the stored fields file was upgraded. But indexes from 2.9 can be read with 3.0 and support may get removed in 4.0. 3.0 Indexes can be read until version 4.9.
Uwe ----- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de _____ From: Jake Mannix [mailto:jake.man...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:15 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Why release 3.0? Don't users need to upgrade to 3.0 because 3.1 won't be necessarily able to read your 2.4 index file formats? I suppose if you've already upgraded to 2.9, then all is well because 2.9 is the same format as 3.0, but we can't assume all users upgraded from 2.4 to 2.9. If you've done that already, then 3.0 might not be necessary, but if you're on 2.4 right now, you will be in for a bad surprise if you try to upgrade to 3.1. -jake On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: One of my "specialties" is asking obvious questions just to see if everyone's assumptions are aligned. So with the discussion about branching 3.0 I have to ask "Is there going to be any 3.0 release intended for *production*?". And if not, would we save a lot of work by just not worrying about retrofitting fixes to a 3.0 branch and carrying on with 3.1 as the first *supported* 3.x release? Since 3.0 is "upgrade-to-java5 and remove deprecations", I'm not sure *as a user* I see a good reason to upgrade to 3.0. Getting a "beta/snapshot" release to get a head start on cleaning up my code does seem worthwhile, if I have the spare time. And having a base 3.0 version that's not changing all over the place would be useful for that. That said, I'm also not terribly comfortable with a "release" that's out there and unsupported. Apologies if this has already been discussed, but I don't remember it. Although my memory isn't what it used to be (but some would claim it never was<G>)... Erick
