On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>> The computer should handle that
>> for me. It really should be as easy
>> as saying, look I want the best new defaults, or I want the back compat
>> defaults. The computer should figure
>>
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
The computer should handle that
for me. It really should be as easy
as saying, look I want the best new defaults, or I want the back compat
defaults. The computer should figure
out the rest for me.
actsAsVersion ;
I'm not against back compatibility. In fact, I agree with your
points, especially the use of the phrase "commonly used interfaces".
My main problem is our approach seems to be very dogmatic and
detrimental for _less_ commonly used interfaces (more importantly less
commonly _implemented_ In
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> The computer should handle that
> for me. It really should be as easy
> as saying, look I want the best new defaults, or I want the back compat
> defaults. The computer should figure
> out the rest for me.
actsAsVersion ;-)
nice and back compa
As far as default settings, it seems like it can be mostly fixed with
documentation (i.e. recommended settings for maximum performance).
That seems like a very small burden for people writing new
applications with Lucene anyway (compare to the cost of writing the
whole application). On the othe
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>> Well... Lucene still seems to be experiencing strong adoption/growth,
>> eg combined user+dev email traffic:
>> http://lucene.markmail.org/
>
> I think that includes all Lucene sub-projects (Solr, Tika, Mahout,
> Nutch, Droids, etc).
>
> http
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> I'm starting to feel like the lone holdout that thinks back compat for
> commonly used interfaces and index formats is important. So I'll sum
> up some of my thoughts and leave it at that:
>
> - I doubt that the number of new users for each re
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Michael McCandless
wrote:
> Well... Lucene still seems to be experiencing strong adoption/growth,
> eg combined user+dev email traffic:
> http://lucene.markmail.org/
I think that includes all Lucene sub-projects (Solr, Tika, Mahout,
Nutch, Droids, etc).
http://lu
Well... Lucene still seems to be experiencing strong adoption/growth,
eg combined user+dev email traffic:
http://lucene.markmail.org/
Net/net, I also think that back-compat is important and we shouldn't
up and abandon it or relax our policy too much.
However, I wish we had better tools for *im
Yonik Seeley wrote:
I'm starting to feel like the lone holdout that thinks back compat for
commonly used interfaces and index formats is important.
I think the fact that your not the only one is why things got stymied.
I wouldnt personally support anything that didnt try and maintain
stabili
I'm starting to feel like the lone holdout that thinks back compat for
commonly used interfaces and index formats is important. So I'll sum
up some of my thoughts and leave it at that:
- I doubt that the number of new users for each release of Lucene
exceeds the sum total of all existing users of
11 matches
Mail list logo
