Is that a proposal to never leave 1.x :) I guess numbers do allow it ... Lance Norskog wrote: > In practical terms, calling a release 2.0 means it will never finish. > "One last feature! No, really!" happens with 1.x. A Solr 2.0 will be > killed by "Let's rewrite this!" > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Nov 19, 2009, at 9:31 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote: >> >> >>> What should the next version of Solr be? >>> >>> Options: >>> >>> - have a Solr 2.0 with a lucene 3.x >>> >> +1. This gives us a chance to remove some deprecated stuff, too. >> >> >> > > > >
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Mark Miller
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Bill Au
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Yonik Seeley
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Mark Miller
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Chris Hostetter
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Grant Ingersoll
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Kay Kay
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Lance Norskog
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Mark Miller
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Paul Borgermans
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Chris Hostetter
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Colin Hynes
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Grant Ingersoll
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Colin Hynes
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Mark Miller
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Mark Miller
- Re: Solr 1.5 or 2.0? Ryan McKinley