I'll reply more thoughtfully to all the points over the weekend. > My wish is to get Solr 10.0 out the door as quickly as possible +1, I agree. None of what I expressed a wish for needs to hold up the release (I don't think I ever said that we should).
On Thu, 11 Sept 2025 at 06:22, Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > Speaking of back compat... how many folks have pointed a 9.x solrj at a > 10.x... I got an error right before I left for CoC that I didn't get to > fully track down, but it was complaining that base url was null. > > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book) > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2025, 6:37 PM Chris Hostetter <hossman_luc...@fucit.org> > wrote: > > > > > : >> If we don't ship headline grabbing features in a major release, we > > might as > > : >> well abandon this project and dedicate our focus on building > > OpenSearch or > > : >> Elasticsearch. > > : > > : This brings up memories of the tragedy of Perl 6. > > > > +1. > > > > Features should be added because they are useful & desirable. > > Features should be released when they are ready & stable. > > > > Our primary concerns for what changes go into each (semanticly) versioned > > release should be based on stability, back compatability, and forward > > compatibility -- not what kinds of headlines they will generate. > > > > > > -Hoss > > http://www.lucidworks.com/ > > >
