I will send the latest version of the draft to java-user in a few days
if nobody objects.
Michael
On 10/13/09 3:10 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
OK, I made the draft a bit "more neutral" by pointing out the
downsides clearer. However, I think we have to explain reasons for and
against the change,
I think this is a good thing. Ultimately, we just need to decide, but
getting user feedback is also important.
-Grant
On Oct 13, 2009, at 6:10 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
OK, I made the draft a bit "more neutral" by pointing out the
downsides clearer. However, I think we have to explain reaso
OK, I made the draft a bit "more neutral" by pointing out the downsides
clearer. However, I think we have to explain reasons for and against the
change, otherwise people who didn't follow these discussions on java-dev
will have no idea why we actually want to make a change at all. I added
your
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
> I've mentioned it several times on java-dev and LUCENE-1698 that I'd like to
> ask the user
> community and nobody objected.
It's the old polling problem - how you ask influences the outcome (as
I said below), and you didn't say exactly how
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Mark Miller wrote:
For the record - I still don't see what we gain but confusion.
The major numbers don't have any significant meaning in terms of
features or advancements.
That's a perception we don't have control over.
A release incrementing the major release number i
On 10/13/09 1:18 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
I think I'm against sending such a request for feedback - and I think
we already know what the results will be.
I've mentioned it several times on java-dev and LUCENE-1698 that I'd
like to ask the user
community and nobody objected.
The email rea
On 10/13/09 1:11 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
I think it should be more clear that the devs have not come to an
agreement on this change yet, irregardless of the communities input.
OK I made a few changes near the end to make that clearer. How's it now?
Draft:
Hello Lucene users:
In the past
I think I'm against sending such a request for feedback - and I think
we already know what the results will be.
The email reads like "we want to do this, OK?" - and the beneficiaries
of what is a volunteer effort are likely to respond overwhelmingly
"OK!". One could take the reverse position and p
For the record - I still don't see what we gain but confusion.
The major numbers don't have any significant meaning in terms of
features or advancements.
If we want to remove deprecations faster after deprecating in 4.1, we
should just not release 4.2,4.3,4.4,4.5, and then 4.9.
We should go from
I think it should be more clear that the devs have not come to an
agreement on this change yet, irregardless of the communities input.
Michael McCandless wrote:
> Looks good!
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I wrote a draft for a mail I'd li
Looks good!
Mike
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wrote a draft for a mail I'd like to send to java-user to get some
> feedback about the proposed changes to our backwards-compatibility policy we
> discussed here and on LUCENE-1698.
> Let me know what you thi
Hi all,
I wrote a draft for a mail I'd like to send to java-user to get some
feedback about the proposed changes to our backwards-compatibility
policy we discussed here and on LUCENE-1698.
Let me know what you think please!
Michael
Hello Lucene users:
In the past we have discussed our bac
12 matches
Mail list logo
