One more addition: - Consider a different wiki... our current style will serve us poorly across major version bumps esp. We need versioning. A different option could include moving more documentation onto the website, where it would be versioned. Getting something easy to edit/change would be the key there.... we don't have that currently.
-Yonik On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org> wrote: > another minor addition: > - move to Junti4 for new tests... and some old tests might be > migrated (for speed issues) > > I already have a SolrTestCaseJ4 that extends LuceneTestCase4J that > avoids spinning up a solr core for each test method... but I need to > be able to reference LuceneTestCase4J from the lucene sources (i.e it > works in the IDE, but not on the command line right now). > > -Yonik > > > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org> wrote: >> Here is a very rough list of what makes sense to me: >> - since lucene is on a new major version, the next solr release >> containing that sould have a new major version number >> - this does not preclude further releases on 1.x >> - for simplicity, and the "single dev" model, we should just sync >> with lucene's... i.e. the next major Solr version would be 3.1 >> - branches/solr would become the new trunk, with a shared trunk with >> lucene in some structure (see other thread) >> - solr cloud branch gets merged in >> - we move to Java6 (Java5 has already been EOLd by Sun unless you pay >> money... and we need Java6 for zookeeper, scripting) >> - remove deprecations (finally!), and perhaps some additional cleanups >> that we've wanted to do >> >> -Yonik >> >
