That all makes perfect sense to me +1 simon
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > Few days ago Robert and I discussed this matter over IRC and thought it's > something we should bring forward to the list. This issue arise due to > recent index format change introduced in LUCENE-2720, and the interesting > question was "if we say 4.0 is required to read all 3x indexes, how would > 4.0 support a future version of 3x, that did not even exist when 4.0 was > released". > > Trunk means the 'unstable' branch (today's 4.0) and Stable is today's 3.0, > but the same issue will arise after we make 4.0 Stable and 5.0 Trunk. > > After some discussion we came to a solution that we would like to propose to > the list: we continue to release 3x until we stabilize trunk. When we're > happy with trunk, we release it, say 4.0, and the last 3x release becomes > the bug fix release for 3x and from that point we maintain 4.0 (new features > and all, while maintaining API back-compat) and Trunk becomes the next big > thing (5.0). > > There won't be interleaving 4.0 and 3x releases and we won't reach the > situation where we released 4.0 and then release 3.2, w/ say index format > change (that we just had to make). > > While we can say 3x can be released after 4.0 w/ no index format changes > whatsoever, we think this proposal makes sense. There's no point maintaining > 2 stable branches (3x and 4x) and an unstable Trunk. > > This will allow us to release 3x as frequent as we want, hold on w/ trunk as > much as we want, and at some point cut over to 4.0 and think about the next > big things we'd like to bring to Lucene. > > What do you think? > > Shai > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
