Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 6, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
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.
We can just sound off approval and announce or be more official with a
vote: your call.
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