Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
On Oct 30, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't want to come across as negative here... i'm not trying to
single anyone out,
just a bit confused as to why my issue was singled out when theres
already been both new features and new deprecations added to 3.0,
and the issue in question doesnt even have any deprecations. then
again i don't really care if its in 3.0 or 3.1, but its just wierd.
It was just because your issue caught my eye because I tend to keep a
closer eye on the language stuff because it's an area of interest.
Nothing personal.
a search on 'deprecated' in contrib is pretty enlightening.
here's an example from spatial: DistanceApproximation entire class
deprecated!
* @deprecated This has been replaced with more accurate
* math in {...@link LLRect}.
this deprecation traces back to LUCENE-1781, which is marked as Fix
Version 2.9
makes me want to delete it, except if you check contrib/CHANGES, you
see it wasn't actually applied until 3.0
so it shouldnt be deleted yet.
again, not trying to be negative, +1 to both the contributor(s) and
committers that fixed this bug in spatial, as I sure don't
understand it.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com
wrote:
What deprecations were already added?
Robert Muir wrote:
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
mailto: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
mailto: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
mailto: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
mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
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 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 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 - 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
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
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
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
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
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
Grant, in this case the new contribution does not require any deprecation, it is another implementation for regex and wildcard query that works a bit differently than the others. Not to stray off-topic, but your comment does apply to RussianLowerCaseFilter, which is currently marked deprecated in 3.0. Until the custom-encoding junk (deprecated in 2.9) was removed, I couldn't easily tell that it was simply a duplicate of LowerCaseFilter... for now its marked deprecated in 3.0 to be removed in 4.0 On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.orgwrote: 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 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 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 - 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 -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
by the way, this russian example is only one I'm familiar with, its hardly the only new deprecation introduced in 3.0 theres been other new features added to contrib in 3.0, and theres been other new deprecations added to contrib in 3.0 I saw this when I started trying to clear out the contrib deprecations earlier today, some of them were just added. On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote: Grant, in this case the new contribution does not require any deprecation, it is another implementation for regex and wildcard query that works a bit differently than the others. Not to stray off-topic, but your comment does apply to RussianLowerCaseFilter, which is currently marked deprecated in 3.0. Until the custom-encoding junk (deprecated in 2.9) was removed, I couldn't easily tell that it was simply a duplicate of LowerCaseFilter... for now its marked deprecated in 3.0 to be removed in 4.0 On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.orgwrote: 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 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 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 - 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 -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
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
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
What deprecations were already added? Robert Muir wrote: 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 mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto: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 mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.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
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
I don't want to come across as negative here... i'm not trying to single
anyone out,
just a bit confused as to why my issue was singled out when theres already
been both new features and new deprecations added to 3.0,
and the issue in question doesnt even have any deprecations. then again i
don't really care if its in 3.0 or 3.1, but its just wierd.
a search on 'deprecated' in contrib is pretty enlightening.
here's an example from spatial: DistanceApproximation entire class
deprecated!
* @deprecated This has been replaced with more accurate
* math in {...@link LLRect}.
this deprecation traces back to LUCENE-1781, which is marked as Fix Version
2.9
makes me want to delete it, except if you check contrib/CHANGES, you see it
wasn't actually applied until 3.0
so it shouldnt be deleted yet.
again, not trying to be negative, +1 to both the contributor(s) and
committers that fixed this bug in spatial, as I sure don't understand it.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
What deprecations were already added?
Robert Muir wrote:
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
mailto: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
mailto: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
mailto: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
mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto: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 mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto: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 mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto: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 mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.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
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
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 mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto: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 mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto: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 mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto: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 mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
:13 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com mailto: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 mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto: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 mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto: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 mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org mailto: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 mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com mailto:rcm...@gmail.com -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
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 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
contrib and lucene 3.0
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
