I gave my technical justification: our backwards compatibility testing doesnt work this way. 9.0 can't have guaranteed back compat with versions coming in the future. This is lunacy.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:30 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto > > "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must provide with > the veto a *technical justification* showing why the change is bad (opens a > security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto without a > justification is invalid and has no weight." > > On Sun, 21 Nov, 2021, 3:30 pm Robert Muir, <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I think we should remove this branch. >> >> personally, i'll probably -1 any commit to it. I'll see if i can >> automate such an email response with a gmail rule. >> >> we already released lucene 9.0, we can't change backwards >> compatibility for some 8.12, same old story, lets move on people. >> >> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Uwe brought up the question on a the vote thread: we are not going to do a >> > 8.12 release, so what should we do of branch_8x? >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
