+1 Makes sense to me.
On Jan 24, 2011, at 4:07 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
Hi
Few days ago Robert and I discussed this matter over IRC and thought it's
something we should bring forward to the list. This issue arise due to recent
index format change introduced in LUCENE-2720, and the
Hi
Few days ago Robert and I discussed this matter over IRC and thought it's
something we should bring forward to the list. This issue arise due to
recent index format change introduced in LUCENE-2720, and the interesting
question was if we say 4.0 is required to read all 3x indexes, how would
That all makes perfect sense to me +1
simon
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Shai Erera ser...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Few days ago Robert and I discussed this matter over IRC and thought it's
something we should bring forward to the list. This issue arise due to
recent index format change
and Stable release strategy
Hi
Few days ago Robert and I discussed this matter over IRC and thought it's
something we should bring forward to the list. This issue arise due to
recent index format change introduced in LUCENE-2720, and the interesting
question was if we say 4.0 is required to read all
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Shai Erera ser...@gmail.com wrote:
This will allow us to release 3x as frequent as we want, hold on w/ trunk as
much as we want, and at some point cut over to 4.0 and think about the next
big things we'd like to bring to Lucene.
+1, this way development is
+1
Mike
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Shai Erera ser...@gmail.com wrote:
This will allow us to release 3x as frequent as we want, hold on w/ trunk as
much as we want, and at some point cut over to 4.0 and think about the
Glad that we reached consensus on this one so quickly :).
Another thing - I think it'd also make sense to stop fixing bugs on 3.0 once
we release 3.1. That way, we can have bug-fix releases for 2.9 and latest
released 3.x. We then have two options about 3.0.4 (not yet released):
1) Release it (as
