We anyway seem to mark every new API as @lucene.experimental these days, so we shouldn't have too much problem when 4.0 is out :).
Experimental API is subject to change at any time. We can consider that as an option as well (maybe it adds another option to Robert's?). Though personally, I'm not a big fan of this notion - I think we deceive ourselves and users when we have @experimental on a "stable" branch. Any @experimental API on trunk today falls into this bucket after 4.0 is out. And I'm sure there are a couple in 3.x already. Don't get me wrong - I don't suggest we should stop using it. But I think we should consider to review the @experimental API before every "stable" release, and reduce it over time, not increase it. Shai On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Simon Willnauer > <simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > I have to admit that branch is very rough and the API is super hard to > > use. For now! > > Lets not be dragged away into discussion how this API should look like > > there will be time > > for that. > > +1, this is what i really meant by "decide how to handle". I don't > think we will be able to quickly "decide how to fix" the branch > itself, i think its really complicated. But we can admit its really > complicated and won't be solved very soon, and try to figure out a > release strategy with this in mind. > > (p.s. sorry simon, you got two copies of this message i accidentally > hit reply instead of reply-all) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
