+1 on moving to Java 6 since Java 5 has been EOL'ed. Bill
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org> wrote: > One more addition: > - Consider a different wiki... our current style will serve us poorly > across major version bumps esp. We need versioning. A different > option could include moving more documentation onto the website, where > it would be versioned. Getting something easy to edit/change would be > the key there.... we don't have that currently. > > -Yonik > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org> wrote: > > another minor addition: > > - move to Junti4 for new tests... and some old tests might be > > migrated (for speed issues) > > > > I already have a SolrTestCaseJ4 that extends LuceneTestCase4J that > > avoids spinning up a solr core for each test method... but I need to > > be able to reference LuceneTestCase4J from the lucene sources (i.e it > > works in the IDE, but not on the command line right now). > > > > -Yonik > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Here is a very rough list of what makes sense to me: > >> - since lucene is on a new major version, the next solr release > >> containing that sould have a new major version number > >> - this does not preclude further releases on 1.x > >> - for simplicity, and the "single dev" model, we should just sync > >> with lucene's... i.e. the next major Solr version would be 3.1 > >> - branches/solr would become the new trunk, with a shared trunk with > >> lucene in some structure (see other thread) > >> - solr cloud branch gets merged in > >> - we move to Java6 (Java5 has already been EOLd by Sun unless you pay > >> money... and we need Java6 for zookeeper, scripting) > >> - remove deprecations (finally!), and perhaps some additional cleanups > >> that we've wanted to do > >> > >> -Yonik > >> > > >
