On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Dawid Weiss <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I don't think jar files are 'history' and it was a mistake we had so
>> many in source control before we cleaned that up. it is much better
>> without them.
>
> Depends how you look at it. If your goal is to be able to actually
> build ancient versions then dropping those JARs is going to be a real
> pain. I think they should stay. Like I said, git is smart enough to
> omit objects that aren't referenced from the cloned branch. The
> conversion from SVN would have to be smart, but it's all doable.

I mentioned this same issue the last thread where we discussed that, I
do recommend to try to actually compile these old versions.

As an experiment, I checked out the release tag for 4.2
(http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/tags/lucene_solr_4_2_0)
and ran 'ant compile'

BUILD FAILED
/home/rmuir/lucene_solr_4_2_0/build.xml:107: The following error
occurred while executing this line:
/home/rmuir/lucene_solr_4_2_0/lucene/common-build.xml:656: The
following error occurred while executing this line:
/home/rmuir/lucene_solr_4_2_0/lucene/common-build.xml:479: The
following error occurred while executing this line:
/home/rmuir/lucene_solr_4_2_0/lucene/common-build.xml:1578: Class not
found: javac1.8

That release was only 2 years ago, and its not the only problem you
will hit. Besides build issues and stuff, I know at least Solr had a
wildcard import, conflicting with the newly introduced
java.util.Base64 that will prevent its compile. And I feel like there
have been numerous sneaky generics issues that only Uwe seems to
understand.

Being able to build the old versions would require a good effort just
to figure out what build tools / compiler versions you need to do it
for the different timeframes, and git hashes aren't great if you want
to document that or try to make some fancy bisection tool.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to