the problem is that the properties have changed for various characters, and new characters were added.
it really has nothing to do with lucene, but the idea you can go from jdk 1.4/lucene 2.9 to jdk 1.5/lucene3.0 without reindexing is not true. On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: > But an UTF-8 stream from Java 4 can still be read with Java 5, what is > the problem? Java 5 extended Unicode support, but an index created with > older versions can still be read. UTF-8 is standardized… > > > > ----- > Uwe Schindler > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > http://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 8:09 PM > > *To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org > *Subject:* Re: Why release 3.0? > > > > uwe, on topic please read my comment on LUCENE-1689, because unicode > version was bumped in jdk 1.5, i believe this index backwards compatibility > is only theoretical > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Robert Muir > rcm...@gmail.com > -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
