>
> 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.
>
I agree. 2.0 or 1.5 makes the most sense.
(In the past I suggested we may not be at 2.0 yet... but with all the
internal re-jiggering, I now think 2.0 would be best).
Locking the solr major number to lucene major number does not make any
sense to me. Say there were a major change to solr (for argument
sake, perhaps it gets in bed with spring), but there is no major
change in lucene... then what?
