Hi chaps, -1 from me. IMHO moving the trunk code to 3.x does not really solve the issue. I'd rather make it more explicit that the standard Nutch (1.x) and Nutch-GORA (2.x) are two separate beasts for instance by referring to 2.x as Nutch-GORA in the artifacts we release. This way users won't assume believe that one is superior to the other. We can keep the same SVN branches (trunk + 2.x) and use the minor version numbers as a reflection of the amount of changes produced in the code.
Changing to 3.x would imply a major change of architecture or functionality, which certainly won't be the case for the next release of the trunk. When users ask "what is the difference between 3.x and 1.x?" we'd have to answer "not much", and more importantly when asked "what is the difference between 3.x and 2.x?" we'd reply "same as between 1.x and 2.x" ;-) Changing the name of the artefacts would clarify things. This reminds me that our FAQ does not really answer these questions (and other basic ones), will post about this separately. Julien On 29 August 2014 17:34, Lewis John Mcgibbney <lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > N.B. move to dev@ > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:40 AM, <user-digest-h...@nutch.apache.org> > wrote: > >> +1, great. >> >> I'd like to have a conversation about versioning. >> >> Since we're at 1.9, my suggestion would be to have the >> next in the trunk series (1.x) move to version 3.x post >> 1.9 for the release. >> > > Based on the discussion from which this new thread stems I would totally > be behind this. It breathes new life into trunk. Which is a bonnie feather > in the Nutch bonnet. Here is my +1 on that one. > > >> >> Nutch2 remains Nutch and can be worked on there. That >> would give us a nice split in the diversionary branch >> paths for Nutch. >> >> > +1 > -- Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/ http://www.digitalpebble.com http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
