: I guess I don't see the back-porting as an issue. Only those that want to need
: to do the back-porting. Head moves on...
I view it as a potential risk to the overal productivity of the community.
If upgrading from A to B is easy people (in general) won't spend a lot of
time/effort backporting feature from B to A -- this time/effort savings
benefits the community because (depending on the person):
1) that time/effort saved can be spend contributing even more features
to Lucene
2) that time/effort saved improves the impressions people have of Lucene.
If on the other hand upgrading from X to Y is "hard" that encouragees
people to backport features ... in some cases this backporting may be done
"in the open" with people contributing these backports as patches, which
can then be commited/releaseed by developers ... but there is still a
time/effort cost there ... a bigger time/effort cost is the cummulative
time/effort cost of all the people that backport some set of features just
enough to get things working for themselves on their local copy, and don't
contribute thouse changes back ... that cost gets paid by the commuity s a
whole over and over again.
I certianly don't want to discourage anyone who *wants* to backport
features, and I would never suggest that Lucene should make it a policy to
not accept patches to previous releases that backport functionality -- i
just think we should do our best to minimize the need/motivation to spend
time/effort on backporting.
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
