Re: 5.0 release status?

2014-10-05 Thread Jack Krupansky
, but I’m just trying to get a handle on the overall impact. -- Jack Krupansky From: Ryan Ernst Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2014 12:48 AM To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 5.0 release status? On Oct 4, 2014 9:35 PM, Jack Krupansky j...@basetechnology.com wrote: Maybe I just can’t fully make sense

Re: 5.0 release status?

2014-10-05 Thread Robert Muir
section in the 5.0 migration guide. Clearly there is plenty of goodness in the 5.0 work, but I’m just trying to get a handle on the overall impact. -- Jack Krupansky From: Ryan Ernst Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2014 12:48 AM To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 5.0 release status? On Oct

5.0 release status?

2014-10-04 Thread Jack Krupansky
I tried to follow all of the trunk 6/branch 5x discussion, but... AFAICT there was no explicit decision or even implication that a release 5.0 would be imminent or that there would not be a 4.11 release. AFAICT, the whole trunk 6/branch 5x decision was more related to wanting to have a trunk

Re: 5.0 release status?

2014-10-04 Thread Shawn Heisey
On 10/4/2014 10:35 AM, Jack Krupansky wrote: I tried to follow all of the trunk 6/branch 5x discussion, but... AFAICT there was no explicit decision or even implication that a release 5.0 would be imminent or that there would not be a 4.11 release. AFAICT, the whole trunk 6/branch 5x decision

Re: 5.0 release status?

2014-10-04 Thread Ryan Ernst
The branch_5x effort is to release what would have been 4.11 as 5.0. The most notable reason being backcompat for 3x indexes, which as Robert has put it is unmaintainable. AFAICT, there isn’t anything super major in 5x that the world is super-urgently waiting for (WAR vs. server?) The WAR

Re: 5.0 release status?

2014-10-04 Thread Jack Krupansky
? Do I have everything straight now? -- Jack Krupansky From: Ryan Ernst Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2014 3:57 PM To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 5.0 release status? The branch_5x effort is to release what would have been 4.11 as 5.0. The most notable reason being backcompat for 3x indexes

Re: 5.0 release status?

2014-10-04 Thread Robert Muir
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jack Krupansky j...@basetechnology.com wrote: I tried to follow all of the trunk 6/branch 5x discussion, but... AFAICT there was no explicit decision or even implication that a release 5.0 would be imminent or that there would not be a 4.11 release. AFAICT, the

Re: 5.0 release status?

2014-10-04 Thread Jack Krupansky
Krupansky -Original Message- From: Robert Muir Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2014 10:43 PM To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 5.0 release status? On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jack Krupansky j...@basetechnology.com wrote: I tried to follow all of the trunk 6/branch 5x discussion

Re: 5.0 release status?

2014-10-04 Thread Ryan Ernst
with UpgradeIndexMergePolicy (although both currently act like an optimize on the old segments, im hoping to change that soon). Ryan -- Jack Krupansky -Original Message- From: Robert Muir Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2014 10:43 PM To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 5.0 release status

Re: 5.0 release status?

2014-10-04 Thread Jack Krupansky
on the direct benefits to users of, say, 4.9 upgrading to 5.0 indexes. Any performance improvement? Any disk space reduction? Any RAM reduction? -- Jack Krupansky From: Ryan Ernst Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2014 12:24 AM To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 5.0 release status? On Oct 4, 2014

Re: 5.0 release status?

2014-10-04 Thread Ryan Ernst
should upgrade their format whenever possible because improvements are always happening. -- Jack Krupansky From: Ryan Ernst Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2014 12:24 AM To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: 5.0 release status? On Oct 4, 2014 9:13 PM, Jack Krupansky j...@basetechnology.com wrote