I don't think a 4.0.1 would be strange at all.

4.X is essentially trunk to me now. I would put in changes that I want
to bake for future 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, etc changes.

When you have bad bugs, you don't want to worry about what's baking -
you just want to put out a bug fix release.

It's also a signal to the community. You know you should upgrade to
4.0.1 and you know it will avoid unnecessary changes - just minimal,
well thought out, bug fixes.

With 4.1, many would just stay on 4.0 - they are not going to rock the
boat for a feature release, but they would upgrade to a critical bug
fix release.

So I think it makes perfect sense. The only reason I don't push harder
for it is the extra effort in releasing it along with 4.1.

I see no reason to abandon bug fix releases though! I think they are
very important.

This is completely unrelated to how long it took to do 4.0. That
release was long because there was a lot of pent up demand around non
back compat refactoring. I'm not sure how that relates to whether or
not we make a bug fix release.

- Mark

>
>> Personally I think a lucene 4.0.1 would be strange: on the other hand
>> 4.1 is already looking very exciting.
>>
>> Just the fact we have a more efficient postings list format is really
>> a huge change for lucene, as developers it might not seem that way
>> since its "just another codec" but for users this is really a big deal
>> and hasn't been done before. I think thats a big enough feature to
>> justify a 4.1 release soonish (e.g. a month) myself.
>>
>> Not sure a 4.0.1 would come any faster: if there was a plan for such a
>> thing I would want to backport all the bugfixes and so on from 4.1
>> where they are already safely integrated and baked... I think we
>> should just plan on releasing more often. We should avoid massive
>> massive releases like 4.0 in the future, there is just no need for
>> that.

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

Reply via email to