Maybe we could just bug-fix support the current 2.9.2 codebase unless people really need something in 2.9.x
I think there would be a 3.0.x line-by-line port and a 3.0.x idiomatic version. I'd like to throw another idea into the mix which is perhaps the idiomatic version could be created by an automated refactoring of the line-by-line. It might be additional upfront work but might make it easier for future changes from java lucene to be propagated down. Alex -----Original Message----- From: mhern...@amptools.net [mailto:mhern...@amptools.net] On Behalf Of Michael Herndon Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 1:28 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Proposal Stage: Backwards Compatibility / Support *Backwards Compatibility / Support: * This is definitely something we need to cover. I'm guessing the obvious choice would be to continue the 2.9.X versions under sharpen, maintain the current api thats has java idioms so that people can continue to use it, release patches, ensure stability with the current community. This would be important for people who have built products on top of lucene.net. The 3.0 version should probably match java in terms of breaking the api due to the language changes or maybe even a separate project inside: lucene.netredux (for lack of a better term at the moment). * * -- Michael Herndon
