I can live w/ that Earwin ... I prefer the ongoing upgrades still, but I won't hold off the back-compat policy change vote because of that.
Shai On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Earwin Burrfoot <ear...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think an index upgrade tool is okay? > While you still definetly have to code it, things like "if idxVer==m > doOneStuff elseif idxVer==n doOtherStuff else blowUp" are kept away > from lucene innards and we all profit? > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 16:21, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > its open source, if you feel this way, you can put the work to add > features > > to some version branch from trunk in a backwards compatible way. > > Then this branch can have a backwards-compatible minor release with new > > features, but nothing ground-breaking. > > but this kinda stuff shouldnt hinder development on trunk. > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Danil ŢORIN <torin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Sometimes it's REALLY impossible to reindex, or has absolutely > prohibitive > >> cost to do in a running production system (i can't shut it down for > >> maintainance, so i need a lot of hardware to reindex ~5 billion > documents, i > >> have no idea what are the costs to retrieve that data all over again, > but i > >> estimate it to be quite a lot) > >> And providing a way to migrate existing indexes to new lucene is crucial > >> from my point of view. > >> I don't care what this way is: calling optimize() with newer lucene or > >> running some tool that takes 5 days, it's ok with me. > >> Just don't put me through full reindexing as I really don't have all > that > >> data anymore. > >> It's not my data, i just receive it from clients, and provide a search > >> interface. > >> It took years to build those indexes, rebuilding is not an option, and > >> staying with old lucene forever just sucks. > >> > >> Danil. > >> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 14:57, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Well ... I must say that I completely disagree w/ dropping index > >>>> structure back-support. Our customers will simply not hear of > reindexing 10s > >>>> of TBs of content because of version upgrades. Such a decision is key > to > >>>> Lucene adoption in large-scale projects. It's entirely not about > whether > >>>> Lucene is a content store or not - content is stored on other systems, > I > >>>> agree. But that doesn't mean reindexing it is tolerable. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I don't understand how its helpful to do a MAJOR version upgrade > without > >>> reindexing... what in the world do you stand to gain from that? > >>> The idea here, is that development can be free of such hassles. > >>> Development should be this way. > >>> If you, Shai, need some feature X.Y.Z from Version 4 and don't want to > >>> reindex, and are willing to do the work to port it back to Version 3 in > a > >>> completely backwards compatible way, then under this new scheme it can > >>> happen. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Robert Muir > >>> rcm...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Robert Muir > > rcm...@gmail.com > > > > > > -- > Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (ear...@gmail.com) > Home / Mobile: +7 (495) 683-567-4 / +7 (903) 5-888-423 > ICQ: 104465785 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
