X.n must be able to read (X-1).n - so 3.1 will be able to read 2.9 - major versions are also for removing deprecations.
Jake Mannix wrote: > Yeah, sorry, I just meant that 3.0 can read 2.9 index format, but 3.1 > will not necessarily have that capability (this is the whole point of > the difference between 2.9 and 3.0, in my understanding). > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de > <mailto: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 <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Jake Mannix [mailto:jake.man...@gmail.com > <mailto:jake.man...@gmail.com>] > *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 7:15 PM > > *To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 > > > > > > > > -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
