On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> Hi Erick, > > > > 3.0 is **not** unsupported or beta release, it is the cleaned up 2.9.1 > release. You are right, it is not needed for 2.9.1 users to upgrade (but > they can), but for new users starting with Lucene, the recommendadion is to > use it and not 2.9. > > 3.0 also contains some cleanups needed for 3.1, as the compressed fields > are no longer supported, so they must be uncompressed, which is done during > optimizing/merging in 3.0. Later versions will remove support for older > index types, but you should really update your indexes, especially because > flex indexing will possibly remove more support for older indexes (as it > gets more complex to maintain all the different file formats). > > > > So 3.0 is recommended for users starting new Java 5 projects and want a > clean API. People needing backwards compatibility can use 2.9.1, but support > for that version will be cancelled in future and bugfixes will only go into > 3.x. > > ----- > Uwe Schindler > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > http://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 7:10 PM > *To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org > *Subject:* Why release 3.0? > > > > 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 > > > > >
