On 1/6/11 2:15 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Stefan Seelmann<seelm...@apache.org>wrote:
I would get the Database Format and Configuration out of the equation.
It's
up to us to provide tools to migrate from one format to the other.
Don't
get
me wrong : when I say that configuration is out of the equation, I mean
that
the configuration can change, not its format (ie switching from XML to
DIT
is possible between to major releases, not between two minor releases).
Will this be transparent to the user? Meaning can he just upgrade the
software and the migration will occur without any change in their
workflow,
or anything noticeable in performance, wait time on startup? More
specifically:
(1) Does the user have to run a tool to migrate from one version to the
next
?
Definitively, yes.
I think the database format must be stable between micro (bugfix) and
minor (feature enhancement) releases. For major releases it is
acceptable to change the format and to provide a migration tool.
This is exactly what I am trying to get consensus on. The DB format impacts
compatibility and so it's something we must consider based on our versioning
scheme.
But with this milestone approach we only have to lock in the format when we
reach the RC stage.
I think we have now reached a consensus.
Can we formally switch to this scheme ? Is a vote necessary ? I don't
know, but may be a report on a separate thread, plus an update on the
web site could help.
I know that those long mails with many things being discussed are hard
to follow. A short mail stating we are switching to the eclipse version
scheme would help here.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
