I don't remember a release w/ an empty BW section in CHANGES ... and I think it's healthy. Otherwise, you'll need to wait endlessly until a major version is released until you can use some features that you, yourself, developed (if you need to use a released Lucene and cannot satisfy w/ trunk).
Shai On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> But I thought that was the whole point - get rid of Version and loosen on >> the bw policy to not be so restrictive on API. We can finally move to use >> interfaces, stop that API refactoring and deprecation (as one said on a blog >> - "orgy"). If we adopt Mike's proposal, where does it leave us - 99% of the >> development double the efforts, and that tiny percentage like flex (even >> though it's a huge feature in and on itself) having easier life? >> >> Perhaps I'm missing something, but if that's what is proposed and meant, I >> think that not changing anything will (surprisingly and confusingly !) make >> our life easier ... >> >> So Mark, I have to agree w/ you: "If we take that route, I am vehemently >> against changing our policy." +1 ! >> >> Shai >> >> > I think its less than 1% (flex, etc) that should be excluded from stable, > but thats my opinion. > > Ideally, stable would have no backwards-break section at all in CHANGES... > and it seems this is a pretty significant portion of patches these days. > > And I don't think merging is "double effort" especially if we aren't doing > risky crazy merges with hairy back compat. > > -- > Robert Muir > rcm...@gmail.com >
