I like the plan. Otis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share
----- Original Message ---- From: Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:17:11 PM Subject: The JDK 1.5 Can o' Worms Well, it has been over a year since we have had the 1.5 debate (see http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-dev/35972? search_string=Java%201.5;#35972) and I think it is time we start accepting 1.5 code. Nutch, Solr, Hadoop all use JDK 1.5 and I imagine Tika will as well (and no, I wouldn't jump off the bridge if everyone else did, but this is not the same.) At a deeper level, I find it frustrating to have to dig into methods and code that use Collections in order to figure out what is actually in the Collection, thus I want generics. I want to use StringBuilder instead of StringBuffer. I think we could benefit from some of the concurrency stuff in 1.5 as well. I also believe all committers and all contributors are using 1.5 already for there environment. I would also _guess_ the large majority of our users are on 1.5. Now, I know, it isn't a big deal to run 1.4 code in 1.5, but it is annoying for development and that is a big enough motivator for me. I would propose we do the following: 1. Put in any new deprecations we want, cleanups, etc. 2. Release 2.9 so all of Mike M's goodness is available to 1.4 users. We could do 2.4 and then 2.9 so that there are two more iterations at 1.4 if people want a little more lead out time. Still, I think the turnaround on these should be weeks, not months. That is, 2.4 is the last significant 2.x release, 2.9 is a bug fix and cleanup release and then we move on. 3. Announce that 2.9 will be the last version under JDK 1.4 4. Switch 3.0-dev to be on JDK 1.5, removing any deprecated code. 5. Start accepting 1.5 patches on 3.0-dev Now, I think if there is someone who is really in dire need of 1.4 we could work to give one or two people committer rights (after the appropriate process has been undertaken, i.e. patching, interest, etc.) on the 2.9 branch and they can be responsible for back-porting. I'm not calling for a vote at this time, but I probably will after some discussion. Cheers, Grant --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
