On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> I think the concern is what happens if Solr migrates a bunch of stuff into > Lucene, ceding control over crucial functionality, and then Solr wants to > release but Lucene does not. That would pose a problem for Solr, no? But, I don't think we'd ever do this -- ie when we release Solr we'll also release Lucene. Think about it... if for some exotic reason Lucene is unreleasable, then, presumably we would not up and release Solr until we fixed whatever was broken with Lucene, since it'd also break Solr. It is conceivable we could release only Lucene (yes, this was an explicit part of the vote, take 2), but I expect in practice that'll be the exception not the rule... it remains to be seen. On version numbering... my inclination would be to let Solr and Lucene use their own version numbers (don't sync them up). I know it'd simplify our lives to have the same version across the board, but these numbers are really for our users, telling them when big changes were made, back compat broken, etc. I think that trumps dev convenience. Mike
