: We're jumping to version 3.1 because we're releasing at the same time, : and are based on Lucene 3.1.
You say it like it's a done deal, but I don't get the impression that i'm the only one who thinks it's unneccessary. My point is really simple: Even if we release at the same time, and even if we're using Lucene-Java 3.1, that doesn't mean the solr release artifact *needs* to be called solr-3.1. the only "pro" i've seen suggested (over and over) is that it makes the solr version number consistent with the luene-java version -- but the "con" is that it's inconsistent with past versions of solr. Since more Solr users (should) have never known nor cared about the lucene-Java version used under the hood, being consistent with past solr versioning seems more useful then being consistent with the versioning of something internal. hardcore users who are writing really low level plugins and interacting directly with the LUcnee-Java APIs inside Solr will care what version of LUcene-java is being used under the covers, but hey can get that from the release notes, it doesn't need to be advertised in the artifact name (2.0 will significantly advertise "this is a big change, plugins will break") I just don't see how jumping to solr-3.1 is any more useful to the users then jumping to solr-2.0; it certinaly seems more confusing. -Hoss
