Hi All, > > > : In the interest of moving forward, perhaps we should just focus on the > : immediate next major release - 3.1. What happens after can wait. We > : never planned for absolutely all the "what if's" in Solr before the > : merge - I'm not sure why we would need to now. > > I suppose, but if we call the next solr release "Solr 3.1" it will set a > precedent that will likely be impossible to maintain in a sane manner. >
+1. Release versions should make sense. The next release of Solr, if it's a major version increment (anecdotally which should have technical justification for being so -- not saying it doesn't, but would be good to say why the major version increment is necessary), should be +1.0 on the current major version number, which is 1.x + 1.0 = 2.x. I'd ask the question what happened to 1.5, or 1.6 (or anywhere in-between), but that's another question. Here's the link to the thread where we talked about this before: http://www.mail-archive.com/solr-dev@lucene.apache.org/msg21936.html I guess what I'm saying is that 2.0 is a lot better than 3.2 (and [here's where my opinion comes in] 1.5 isn't so bad either). Cheers, Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
