On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Shai Erera <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
+1 > > Shai > > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Simon Willnauer >> <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
