well, not to complain, but I will mention on this topic. If something is marked deprecated, its 10x easier if in the javadocs there is some version information applied.
In the wild west that is contrib, its currently a bit difficult for me to clear out the deprecations from 2.9, because there are new deprecations added in 3.0. it takes svn annotate + jira + CHANGES to figure out exactly what should be cleared out (and sometimes these all seem to disagree, Fix Version != Changes, etc etc) This is why i only did part of LUCENE-2022 On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have no problem with new features either - but I would vote that if it > requires new deprecations, it should wait. > > I think its nice to have a clean release first. And I also don't think > any of this features should hold up the 3.0 release. Lets get it out - > then focus on new features. > > Grant Ingersoll wrote: > > How do you handle deprecations of old stuff for the new contribution > > (assuming it needs it)? Seems weird to have a major release that > > immediately has deprecations. At the same time, it seems weird to > > have a major release that doesn't contain new features. If anything, > > it is our best opportunity to put in new stuff > > > > Traditionally, the only difference between .9 and .0 has been removal > > of deprecations. This time around we are saying also JDK 1.5. > > > > Not saying we can't do it, just wondering. > > > > On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:31 PM, DM Smith wrote: > > > >> I don't see any reason to freeze new contributions from any release. > >> > >> On 10/30/2009 03:19 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > >>> thanks Michael. > >>> > >>> does anyone else have any opinion on this issue? > >>> fyi we already have several new features committed to 3.0 contrib > >>> already (see contrib/CHANGES), > >>> but I don't too much care either way, if I should not be adding this > >>> feature to 3.0, I'd like to set the version in jira to 3.1 > >>> > >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Michael McCandless > >>> <luc...@mikemccandless.com <mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>> I think we should allow new features into contrib for 3.0. > >>> > >>> I don't even like holding new features from core for 3.0. > >>> > >>> In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is locked down.... > >>> Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing ahead at all > times. > >>> > >>> Mike > >>> > >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com > >>> <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>> > Hi, > >>> > > >>> > What is the consensus on new features for contrib for Lucene > >>> 3.0? I know > >>> > that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and deprecation > >>> removal. > >>> > > >>> > I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the right version, > >>> but I figured > >>> > its really not just about that specific issue, I would like to > >>> know the > >>> > plans in general. > >>> > > >>> > Thanks, > >>> > Robert > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Robert Muir > >>> > rcm...@gmail.com <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >>> <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >>> <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Robert Muir > >>> rcm...@gmail.com <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > > -- > - Mark > > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
