I think we said that we wanted a 2.4 release. There are a bunch of issues with Fix Version 2.4. And it would be nice to get them into 2.4 instead of 3.x, because some of them involve fairly big API changes, like LUCENE-584 or LUCENE-831. Then we could get rid of all the deprecated APIs in 3.0 and clean up the code.
One question that came to my mind: What's our policy for file format backwards-compatibility? Is it the same as for APIs. That would mean that Lucene 3.0 would have to be able to read indexes built with 2.9 but not with earlier versions. I'd be all for such a policy, because that would clean up some classes significantly. -Michael Grant Ingersoll wrote: > I can't remember, did we say we are going to go to 2.4 or 2.9 next? I > suppose it depends a bit on 2.3, but I generally think we should move > onto 2.9 and then 3.0 fairly quickly. > > Thoughts? > > -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]
