Hi Erick,
3.0 is *not* unsupported or beta release, it is the cleaned up 2.9.1 release. You are right, it is not needed for 2.9.1 users to upgrade (but they can), but for new users starting with Lucene, the recommendadion is to use it and not 2.9. 3.0 also contains some cleanups needed for 3.1, as the compressed fields are no longer supported, so they must be uncompressed, which is done during optimizing/merging in 3.0. Later versions will remove support for older index types, but you should really update your indexes, especially because flex indexing will possibly remove more support for older indexes (as it gets more complex to maintain all the different file formats). So 3.0 is recommended for users starting new Java 5 projects and want a clean API. People needing backwards compatibility can use 2.9.1, but support for that version will be cancelled in future and bugfixes will only go into 3.x. ----- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de _____ From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:10 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Why release 3.0? One of my "specialties" is asking obvious questions just to see if everyone's assumptions are aligned. So with the discussion about branching 3.0 I have to ask "Is there going to be any 3.0 release intended for *production*?". And if not, would we save a lot of work by just not worrying about retrofitting fixes to a 3.0 branch and carrying on with 3.1 as the first *supported* 3.x release? Since 3.0 is "upgrade-to-java5 and remove deprecations", I'm not sure *as a user* I see a good reason to upgrade to 3.0. Getting a "beta/snapshot" release to get a head start on cleaning up my code does seem worthwhile, if I have the spare time. And having a base 3.0 version that's not changing all over the place would be useful for that. That said, I'm also not terribly comfortable with a "release" that's out there and unsupported. Apologies if this has already been discussed, but I don't remember it. Although my memory isn't what it used to be (but some would claim it never was<G>)... Erick
