On Mar 18, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
> : Sorry - I should have quoted it.
> : You cited user confusion, and I was giving an example of how it was
> : very easy to explain... an example of what I'd put in the release
> : notes to explain it.
>
> Ahhh... sorry, yes i did in fact missunderstand that part.
>
> : Jumping major releases is a really big, uncompatible deal anyway - it
> : seems like "user confusion" is a really big stretch.
>
> It may be ... but it just seems like such a no brainer easy thing to avoid
> at such little cost:
>
> Use 3.1 and developers in the know will understand that i's because we're
> using LuceneJava 3.1; but uninformed users *might* be confused as to why
> it jumped to a (seemingly) arbitrary number.
>
> Use 2.0 and even the most uninformed user should "get" that this is a
> major upgrade; developers will *still* know that we're using LUcene-java
> 3.1.
>
I don't see a compelling reason to go to 3.1. It is going to be very confusing
for users ("when did 3.0 come out? Did I miss it?") At least when MS Word
jumped from 2.0 to 6.0 it wasn't to a "minor" version (i.e. 6.1). 2.0 seems
reasonable, as does 1.5. Although 2.0 would be a good reason to get rid of
deprecations.
-Grant
