:54 PM
Subject: Re: Going to Java 5. Was: Re: A bit of planning
All it takes is one line in the announcement saying "Version 3.0 uses
Java 1.5" I don't think the significance will be lost on anyone.
Everyone knows what Java 1.5 is. I'm -1 on calling it 4.0. People
will th
: I'm fine with the plan as far as I understand it, but can you clarify
: something for me?
:
: While 3.0 won't be backward compatible in that it requires Java 5.0, will it
: be otherwise backward compatible? That is, if I compile with 2.9, eliminate
: all deprecations and use Java 5, can I drop 3
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
All it takes is one line in the announcement saying "Version 3.0 uses
Java 1.5" I don't think the significance will be lost on anyone.
Everyone knows what Java 1.5 is. I'm -1 on calling it 4.0. People
will then ask where is 3.0. I am +1 for sticking w/ the plan we vo
All it takes is one line in the announcement saying "Version 3.0 uses
Java 1.5" I don't think the significance will be lost on anyone.
Everyone knows what Java 1.5 is. I'm -1 on calling it 4.0. People
will then ask where is 3.0. I am +1 for sticking w/ the plan we voted
for as describe
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:21 PM, DM Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> > We voted to make 3.0 Java 1.5, full well knowing that it will break
> > the back compat. requirements. I don't see the point of postponing it
> > or dragging it out.
>
> I thought his suggestion was
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
We voted to make 3.0 Java 1.5, full well knowing that it will break
the back compat. requirements. I don't see the point of postponing it
or dragging it out.
I thought his suggestion was to skip 3.0 as a designator and instead use
4.0. If so, the schedule would not cha
We voted to make 3.0 Java 1.5, full well knowing that it will break
the back compat. requirements. I don't see the point of postponing it
or dragging it out.
On Mar 10, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Doron Cohen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 4:01 PM, DM Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Jan 1
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 4:01 PM, DM Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 17, 2008, at 1:38 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
> > : I'd like to recommend that 3.0 contain the new Java 5 API changes
> > and what it
> > : replaces be marked deprecated. 3.0 would also remove what was
> > deprecated
On Jan 17, 2008, at 1:38 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: If I remember right, the file format changed in 2.1, such that 2.0
could not
: read a 2.1 index.
that is totally within the bounds of the compatibility statement...
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/BackwardsCompatibility
Note that ol
