Getting back to the stable/experimental branches... I think, with separate stable & experimental branches, development would/should be active on both branches. It'd depend on the feature...
Eg today we'd have 3.x stable branch and the experimental branch (= trunk). Small features, bug fixes, would be ported to both branches. I think features that deprecate some APIs would still be fine on the stable branch. Major changes (eg flex) would only be done on the experimental branch. This empowers us on a feature by feature case to decide whether it'll be in the stable release or not. The stable branch releases would be 3.0, 3.1, etc., but we could still do the .Z releases (3.0.1, 3.0.2) for bug fixes, if we need to. And we could do alpha releases off the experimental branch as we think we're getting close to cutting a new stable release (4.0). Mike On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 6:50 PM, DM Smith <dmsmith...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Robert has already started one. (1488 I think). > > and it could work with this new scheme... because then you could use an > older icu jar file with an older lucene-analyzer-icu.jar or whatever and you > have it more under control. > under the "existing scheme" you cant really improve back compat with ICU, > because they make API changes and backwards breaks and such themselves, so > you cant make one "Tokenizer" say that does anything meaningful that works > with all versions of it... > but it would be cool to say: here is lucene-analyzer-icu-4.0.jar that works > with icu 4.4. and you could keep using that as long as you have to > (meanwhile trunk could start using icu 4.6) > > -- > Robert Muir > rcm...@gmail.com > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
