uwe, on topic please read my comment on LUCENE-1689, because unicode version was bumped in jdk 1.5, i believe this index backwards compatibility is only theoretical
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: > 2.9 has **not** the same format as 3.0, an index created with 3.0 cannot > be read with 2.9. This is because compressed field support was removed and > therefore the version number of the stored fields file was upgraded. But > indexes from 2.9 can be read with 3.0 and support may get removed in 4.0. > 3.0 Indexes can be read until version 4.9. > > > > Uwe > > ----- > Uwe Schindler > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > http://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Jake Mannix [mailto:jake.man...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 7:15 PM > > *To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org > *Subject:* Re: Why release 3.0? > > > > Don't users need to upgrade to 3.0 because 3.1 won't be necessarily able to > read your > 2.4 index file formats? I suppose if you've already upgraded to 2.9, then > all is well because > 2.9 is the same format as 3.0, but we can't assume all users upgraded from > 2.4 to 2.9. > > If you've done that already, then 3.0 might not be necessary, but if you're > on 2.4 right now, > you will be in for a bad surprise if you try to upgrade to 3.1. > > -jake > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
