On Oct 30, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Robert Muir 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 quest
definitely wasn't trying to single you out, again.
besides, this isn't the only instance. just the one that i could remember.
I'll set LUCENE-1606 to 3.1, even tho it doesn't deprecate anything, lets
focus on clearing this shit up and making a clean 3.0 release.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 5:30 PM,
Mea culpa ;) (on LUCENE-1781)
And I agree we need a better solution in general. I think not
deprecating new stuff until the .0 release is out seems best? I think
this .0 release is also especially challenging because we're (well,
Uwe and a few others -- thanks)'re taking advantage of 1.5's new
Negative shcmegative :)
Your right - this needs to be handled better. If we are going to add new
deprecations before all of the old deprecations are removed, there needs
to be help in the javadocs.
Of course its nothing against those that did it - they likely didn't see
this issue - I don't think
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 r
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 diffic
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
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 de
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
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 Inger
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 oppo
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
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,
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, Rob
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
