haha
2011-09-07
janwen | China
website : http://www.qianpin.com/
twitter : http://twitter.com/loujianwen
-
网易闪电邮（fm.163.com），您的专属邮件管家
发件人: Erick Erickson
发送时间: 2011-09-07 20:53
主 题: Re: Re: lucene3.x vs lucene2.x
收件人: java-user
: http://www.qianpin.com/
> twitter : http://twitter.com/loujianwen
>
> **
> -
> 网易闪电邮（fm.163.com），收发邮件、快如闪电！
> --
> 发件人: Erick Erickson
> 发送时间: 2011-09-07 19:24
> 主 题: Re: lucene3.x vs
: lucene3.x vs lucene2.x
收件人: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Oops, I was thinking I was on the Solr list, so forget the history
lesson.
that said, the rest of my previous comment still holds, the bleeding
edge Lucene code is still trunk, with the 3.x versions quite stable. I'd
still go
19:05
主 题: Re: lucene3.x vs lucene2.x
收件人: java-user@lucene.apache.org
First, a small background on versions. There is no version 2. When
Lucene and Solr merged, Lucene was on version 2.9 and Solr was 1.4.1 so,
rather than have two different numbers (i.e. Solr 2.x and Lucene 3.x),
Solr skipped
Oops, I was thinking I was on the Solr list, so forget the history
lesson.
that said, the rest of my previous comment still holds, the bleeding
edge Lucene code is still trunk, with the 3.x versions quite stable. I'd
still go with the 3.x versions for Lucene as well.
Sorry for the confusion
E
First, a small background on versions. There is no version 2. When
Lucene and Solr merged, Lucene was on version 2.9 and Solr was 1.4.1 so,
rather than have two different numbers (i.e. Solr 2.x and Lucene 3.x),
Solr skipped 2 and went straight to 3. Now Solr and Lucene are released
jointly and have
