I'm not just responding to just you there, but more to the growing
pack of those speaking against the new API. I don't see specific
issues being brought up - the only issues I have seen brought up have
been addressed in JIRA issues that have received no comments
indicating the fix was not good enough. So we are seeing a lot of
general complaints, but specific complaints have been addressed as far
as I can tell.
Thanks Mark. Yeah, I'm really not sure what actually the problem here is
now. There was a performance test in Solr that apparently ran much
slower after upgrading to the new Lucene jar. This test is testing a
rather uncommon scenario: very very short documents. Within one day -
thanks to Uwe - we committed a patch that basically brings back the
performance to where it was before. That is a pretty good turnaround
time. And according to Robert's and Mark's performance tests Lucene
trunk is now even a little bit faster than 2.4 was. This was not the
first time we found and fixed a bug in Lucene and it won't be the last.
As far as back compat - is it really still considered an issue? We
have broken back compat in this release wherever it was convenient to
do so. I suspect that will continue. I just wish our policy reflected
how things actually work (and I think they work as they should, based
on the circumstances that lead to each decision).
All backwards-compatibility problems we could think of were addressed
and all possible uses cases were tested regarding
backwards-compatibility. In LUCENE-1693 you can find the many iterations
Uwe and I had about this. All current unit tests pass. All contrib tests
pass. All backwards-compatibility tests from the 2.4 tag pass as well.
This is probably one of the best-tested additions to Lucene in terms of
backwards-compatibility we've had in a while.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
