What should the next version of Solr be?
Options:
- have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 2.9.x
- have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 3.x, with weaker back compat given all
of the removed lucene deprecations from 2.9->3.0
- have a Solr 2.0 with a lucene 3.x
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
-
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> What should the next version of Solr be?
>
> Options:
> - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 2.9.x
> - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 3.x, with weaker back compat given all
> of the removed lucene deprecations from 2.9->3.0
> - have a Solr 2.0 with
M
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Solr 1.5 or 2.0?
>
> What should the next version of Solr be?
>
> Options:
> - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 2.9.x
> - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 3.x, with weaker back compat given all
> of the removed lucene deprecations
Oops... of course I meant to post this in solr-dev.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> What should the next version of Solr be?
>
> Options:
> - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 2.9.x
> - have a Solr 1.5 with a lucene 3.x, with weaker back
ber 19, 2009 3:31 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0?
>
> Oops... of course I meant to post this in solr-dev.
>
> -Yonik
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Yonik Seeley
> wrote:
> > What sho
://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ysee...@gmail.com [mailto:ysee...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yonik
>> Seeley
>> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 3:31 PM
>> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: S
I would love to set goals that are ~3 months out so that we don't have
another 1 year release cycle. For a 2.0 release where we could have
more back-compatibly flexibility, i would love to see some work that
may be too ambitious... In particular, the config spaghetti needs
some attention.
Ryan McKinley wrote:
> I would love to set goals that are ~3 months out so that we don't have
> another 1 year release cycle. For a 2.0 release where we could have
> more back-compatibly flexibility, i would love to see some work that
> may be too ambitious... In particular, the config spaghetti
On Nov 19, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
Ryan McKinley wrote:
I would love to set goals that are ~3 months out so that we don't
have
another 1 year release cycle. For a 2.0 release where we could have
more back-compatibly flexibility, i would love to see some work that
may be too amb
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
>
> On Nov 19, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
>> Ryan McKinley wrote:
>>>
>>> I would love to set goals that are ~3 months out so that we don't have
>>> another 1 year release cycle. For a 2.0 release where we could have
>>> more back-
10 matches
Mail list logo
