You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> on 2014/03/08 12:27:28 UTC
Release Lucene 5?
Hi all,
Java 8 will get released (hopefully, but I trust the release plan!) on March 18, 2014. Because of this, lots of developers will move to Java 8, too. This makes maintaining 3 versions for developing Lucene 4.x not easy anymore (unless you have cool JAVA_HOME "cmd" launcher scriptsusing StEXBar available for your Windows Explorer - or similar stuff in Linux).
I think we should release Lucene 5 with Java 7 as minimum requirement quite soon - I could act as release manager. Unfortunately we have not many new features (as most stuff was backported, breaking backwards compatibility), but we should really work on releasing it. In my opinion, Java 7 minimum requirement is a good reason for a major version bump. I don't think we should add another 4.x release series! I would prefer to move branch_4x to the attic and disable its Jenkins builds. This would also allow to remove support for crazy JRockit, because there is no longer JRockit for Java 7.
Uwe
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: Release Lucene 5?
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
Hi Simon,
Thanks for the +1. I was afraid that maybe Elasticsearch wants to stay with Java 6, but I am happy that you will then also change to Java 7 once you use Lucene 4.8.
Uwe
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Willnauer [mailto:simon.willnauer@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 3:06 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Release Lucene 5?
>
> +1 that is the right thing to do. Let move forward Java 6 went EOL and
> it's a security risk for all running it since security fixes are not ported anymore
> afaik. We should just move on here to be honest!
>
> simon
>
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> > Ok, then let’s release 4.8 using Java 7 as minimum requirement! Both
> > is fine to me. I just want Java 6 go away!
> >
> >
> >
> > -----
> >
> > Uwe Schindler
> >
> > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> >
> > http://www.thetaphi.de
> >
> > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 1:35 PM
> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Release Lucene 5?
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry, but I disagree. We shouldn't release a new major version for
> > arbitrary reasons. Meanwhile the 4.x releases keep getting better,
> > maybe it could go to 4.12 or 4.15 before 4.x runs out of steam.
> >
> > On Mar 8, 2014 6:27 AM, "Uwe Schindler" <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Java 8 will get released (hopefully, but I trust the release plan!) on
> > March 18, 2014. Because of this, lots of developers will move to Java
> > 8, too. This makes maintaining 3 versions for developing Lucene 4.x
> > not easy anymore (unless you have cool JAVA_HOME "cmd" launcher
> > scriptsusing StEXBar available for your Windows Explorer - or similar stuff in
> Linux).
> >
> > I think we should release Lucene 5 with Java 7 as minimum requirement
> > quite soon - I could act as release manager. Unfortunately we have not
> > many new features (as most stuff was backported, breaking backwards
> > compatibility), but we should really work on releasing it. In my
> > opinion, Java 7 minimum requirement is a good reason for a major
> > version bump. I don't think we should add another 4.x release series!
> > I would prefer to move branch_4x to the attic and disable its Jenkins
> > builds. This would also allow to remove support for crazy JRockit, because
> there is no longer JRockit for Java 7.
> >
> > Uwe
> >
> > -----
> > Uwe Schindler
> > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> > http://www.thetaphi.de
> > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For
> > additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Release Lucene 5?
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@gmail.com>.
+1 that is the right thing to do. Let move forward Java 6 went EOL and
it's a security risk for all running it since security fixes are not
ported anymore afaik. We should just move on here to be honest!
simon
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> Ok, then let’s release 4.8 using Java 7 as minimum requirement! Both is fine
> to me. I just want Java 6 go away!
>
>
>
> -----
>
> Uwe Schindler
>
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>
> http://www.thetaphi.de
>
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>
>
>
> From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 1:35 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Release Lucene 5?
>
>
>
> Sorry, but I disagree. We shouldn't release a new major version for
> arbitrary reasons. Meanwhile the 4.x releases keep getting better, maybe it
> could go to 4.12 or 4.15 before 4.x runs out of steam.
>
> On Mar 8, 2014 6:27 AM, "Uwe Schindler" <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Java 8 will get released (hopefully, but I trust the release plan!) on March
> 18, 2014. Because of this, lots of developers will move to Java 8, too. This
> makes maintaining 3 versions for developing Lucene 4.x not easy anymore
> (unless you have cool JAVA_HOME "cmd" launcher scriptsusing StEXBar
> available for your Windows Explorer - or similar stuff in Linux).
>
> I think we should release Lucene 5 with Java 7 as minimum requirement quite
> soon - I could act as release manager. Unfortunately we have not many new
> features (as most stuff was backported, breaking backwards compatibility),
> but we should really work on releasing it. In my opinion, Java 7 minimum
> requirement is a good reason for a major version bump. I don't think we
> should add another 4.x release series! I would prefer to move branch_4x to
> the attic and disable its Jenkins builds. This would also allow to remove
> support for crazy JRockit, because there is no longer JRockit for Java 7.
>
> Uwe
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: Release Lucene 5?
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
> And let's also move trunk to Java 8 then.
>
> My suggestion is either:
> - Backport all Java 8 changes from trunk to 4.x (and reassign fix versions to
> 4.8)
Of course, backport Java 7 changes . :-)
> - Or re-branch trunk to branch_4x, incorporating *all* changes from trunk (so
> "svn rm branch_4x; svn cp trunk branch_4x")
>
> It depends on how much work this is and which issues are affected.
>
> We should decide this and not hurry any heavy commits.
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 2:38 PM
> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Release Lucene 5?
> >
> > +1, thats the right solution.
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> > > Ok, then let’s release 4.8 using Java 7 as minimum requirement! Both
> > > is fine to me. I just want Java 6 go away!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > Uwe Schindler
> > >
> > > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> > >
> > > http://www.thetaphi.de
> > >
> > > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 1:35 PM
> > > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Release Lucene 5?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, but I disagree. We shouldn't release a new major version for
> > > arbitrary reasons. Meanwhile the 4.x releases keep getting better,
> > > maybe it could go to 4.12 or 4.15 before 4.x runs out of steam.
> > >
> > > On Mar 8, 2014 6:27 AM, "Uwe Schindler" <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Java 8 will get released (hopefully, but I trust the release plan!)
> > > on March 18, 2014. Because of this, lots of developers will move to
> > > Java 8, too. This makes maintaining 3 versions for developing Lucene
> > > 4.x not easy anymore (unless you have cool JAVA_HOME "cmd" launcher
> > > scriptsusing StEXBar available for your Windows Explorer - or
> > > similar stuff in
> > Linux).
> > >
> > > I think we should release Lucene 5 with Java 7 as minimum
> > > requirement quite soon - I could act as release manager.
> > > Unfortunately we have not many new features (as most stuff was
> > > backported, breaking backwards compatibility), but we should really
> > > work on releasing it. In my opinion, Java 7 minimum requirement is a
> > > good reason for a major version bump. I don't think we should add
> another 4.x release series!
> > > I would prefer to move branch_4x to the attic and disable its
> > > Jenkins builds. This would also allow to remove support for crazy
> > > JRockit, because
> > there is no longer JRockit for Java 7.
> > >
> > > Uwe
> > >
> > > -----
> > > Uwe Schindler
> > > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de
> > > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For
> > > additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional
> > commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Release Lucene 5?
Posted by Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>.
bq: as far as not refactoring stuff until you change it, how well is that
working out for solr? :)
Well, it's the theory I try for at least, I don't control others.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> OK, That's Not Going To Happen. Is the sense here that moving
>> forward with Java 7 idioms will be on an as-needed basis? One
>> refactoring mantra is you should only change stuff you're working
>> on, not unrelated bits of code.
>>
>
> It may happen. I'd be willing to help with such a thing for lucene, I
> think its worth it. Uwe did much of the work for a thing like this in
> java 5.
>
> as far as not refactoring stuff until you change it, how well is that
> working out for solr? :)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Release Lucene 5?
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OK, That's Not Going To Happen. Is the sense here that moving
> forward with Java 7 idioms will be on an as-needed basis? One
> refactoring mantra is you should only change stuff you're working
> on, not unrelated bits of code.
>
It may happen. I'd be willing to help with such a thing for lucene, I
think its worth it. Uwe did much of the work for a thing like this in
java 5.
as far as not refactoring stuff until you change it, how well is that
working out for solr? :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Release Lucene 5?
Posted by Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>.
So what are we thinking of here for bringing the code up to java 7?
One approach would be this massive effort to use, say, diamonds.
You know, a checkin of probably all the files in Solr and Lucene. What the
heck, let's re-format it all at the same time. And while we're at it....
OK, That's Not Going To Happen. Is the sense here that moving
forward with Java 7 idioms will be on an as-needed basis? One
refactoring mantra is you should only change stuff you're working
on, not unrelated bits of code.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com]
>> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>> > And let's also move trunk to Java 8 then.
>> >
>> > My suggestion is either:
>> > - Backport all Java 8 changes from trunk to 4.x (and reassign fix
>> > versions to 4.8)
>>
>> Assuming you mean java7, +1 :)
>
> Thanks, sorry for the typo.
>
>> > - Or re-branch trunk to branch_4x, incorporating *all* changes from
>> > trunk (so "svn rm branch_4x; svn cp trunk branch_4x")
>> >
>>
>> I don't want this: there are some api problems to be resolved in trunk. I am
>> unhappy about StoredDocument/IndexableDocument, which is intended to
>> remove the confusion around "not getting your whole document back"
>> when things arent stored: because docvalues fields appear in the stored
>> document. so this really needs to be sorted out.
>
> I agree. At the time when we splitted the APIs, DocValues was not yet matured in 4.x and trunk. I would love to have the StoredIndexableDocument stuff in Lucene, it is now pending since 1.5 years in trunk (since my GSoC student did it). I agree, we need to improve the API! But this would not have prevented me from releasing it. It is not worse than the duplicate Sorter API, you resolved last week :-) So feel free to improve the API, too!
>
> Once we agree here (I will add a separate vote now to move to Java 7 in branch 4.x), I will open a back port issue and try to back port as much stuff as possible. The first thing would be stuff like reverting commits to work around missing Long.compare/Integer.compare in Java 6.
>
> Uwe
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Release Lucene 5?
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
]
>>
>> I don't want this: there are some api problems to be resolved in trunk. I am
>> unhappy about StoredDocument/IndexableDocument, which is intended to
>> remove the confusion around "not getting your whole document back"
>> when things arent stored: because docvalues fields appear in the stored
>> document. so this really needs to be sorted out.
>
> I agree. At the time when we splitted the APIs, DocValues was not yet matured in 4.x and trunk. I would love to have the StoredIndexableDocument stuff in Lucene, it is now pending since 1.5 years in trunk (since my GSoC student did it). I agree, we need to improve the API! But this would not have prevented me from releasing it. It is not worse than the duplicate Sorter API, you resolved last week :-) So feel free to improve the API, too!
>
It is "worse" because every single lucene user must use the
o.a.l.document API. So this is radically different from the index
sorting api.
As long as docvalues come back in a storedocument, then the
stored/indexable change doesn't make sense at all, and we shouldnt
release it that way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: Release Lucene 5?
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com]
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> > And let's also move trunk to Java 8 then.
> >
> > My suggestion is either:
> > - Backport all Java 8 changes from trunk to 4.x (and reassign fix
> > versions to 4.8)
>
> Assuming you mean java7, +1 :)
Thanks, sorry for the typo.
> > - Or re-branch trunk to branch_4x, incorporating *all* changes from
> > trunk (so "svn rm branch_4x; svn cp trunk branch_4x")
> >
>
> I don't want this: there are some api problems to be resolved in trunk. I am
> unhappy about StoredDocument/IndexableDocument, which is intended to
> remove the confusion around "not getting your whole document back"
> when things arent stored: because docvalues fields appear in the stored
> document. so this really needs to be sorted out.
I agree. At the time when we splitted the APIs, DocValues was not yet matured in 4.x and trunk. I would love to have the StoredIndexableDocument stuff in Lucene, it is now pending since 1.5 years in trunk (since my GSoC student did it). I agree, we need to improve the API! But this would not have prevented me from releasing it. It is not worse than the duplicate Sorter API, you resolved last week :-) So feel free to improve the API, too!
Once we agree here (I will add a separate vote now to move to Java 7 in branch 4.x), I will open a back port issue and try to back port as much stuff as possible. The first thing would be stuff like reverting commits to work around missing Long.compare/Integer.compare in Java 6.
Uwe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Release Lucene 5?
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> And let's also move trunk to Java 8 then.
>
> My suggestion is either:
> - Backport all Java 8 changes from trunk to 4.x (and reassign fix versions to 4.8)
Assuming you mean java7, +1 :)
> - Or re-branch trunk to branch_4x, incorporating *all* changes from trunk (so "svn rm branch_4x; svn cp trunk branch_4x")
>
I don't want this: there are some api problems to be resolved in
trunk. I am unhappy about StoredDocument/IndexableDocument, which is
intended to remove the confusion around "not getting your whole
document back" when things arent stored: because docvalues fields
appear in the stored document. so this really needs to be sorted out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: Release Lucene 5?
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
And let's also move trunk to Java 8 then.
My suggestion is either:
- Backport all Java 8 changes from trunk to 4.x (and reassign fix versions to 4.8)
- Or re-branch trunk to branch_4x, incorporating *all* changes from trunk (so "svn rm branch_4x; svn cp trunk branch_4x")
It depends on how much work this is and which issues are affected.
We should decide this and not hurry any heavy commits.
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 2:38 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Release Lucene 5?
>
> +1, thats the right solution.
>
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> > Ok, then let’s release 4.8 using Java 7 as minimum requirement! Both
> > is fine to me. I just want Java 6 go away!
> >
> >
> >
> > -----
> >
> > Uwe Schindler
> >
> > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> >
> > http://www.thetaphi.de
> >
> > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 1:35 PM
> > To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Release Lucene 5?
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry, but I disagree. We shouldn't release a new major version for
> > arbitrary reasons. Meanwhile the 4.x releases keep getting better,
> > maybe it could go to 4.12 or 4.15 before 4.x runs out of steam.
> >
> > On Mar 8, 2014 6:27 AM, "Uwe Schindler" <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Java 8 will get released (hopefully, but I trust the release plan!) on
> > March 18, 2014. Because of this, lots of developers will move to Java
> > 8, too. This makes maintaining 3 versions for developing Lucene 4.x
> > not easy anymore (unless you have cool JAVA_HOME "cmd" launcher
> > scriptsusing StEXBar available for your Windows Explorer - or similar stuff in
> Linux).
> >
> > I think we should release Lucene 5 with Java 7 as minimum requirement
> > quite soon - I could act as release manager. Unfortunately we have not
> > many new features (as most stuff was backported, breaking backwards
> > compatibility), but we should really work on releasing it. In my
> > opinion, Java 7 minimum requirement is a good reason for a major
> > version bump. I don't think we should add another 4.x release series!
> > I would prefer to move branch_4x to the attic and disable its Jenkins
> > builds. This would also allow to remove support for crazy JRockit, because
> there is no longer JRockit for Java 7.
> >
> > Uwe
> >
> > -----
> > Uwe Schindler
> > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> > http://www.thetaphi.de
> > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For
> > additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Release Lucene 5?
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
+1, thats the right solution.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> Ok, then let’s release 4.8 using Java 7 as minimum requirement! Both is fine
> to me. I just want Java 6 go away!
>
>
>
> -----
>
> Uwe Schindler
>
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
>
> http://www.thetaphi.de
>
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>
>
>
> From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 1:35 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Release Lucene 5?
>
>
>
> Sorry, but I disagree. We shouldn't release a new major version for
> arbitrary reasons. Meanwhile the 4.x releases keep getting better, maybe it
> could go to 4.12 or 4.15 before 4.x runs out of steam.
>
> On Mar 8, 2014 6:27 AM, "Uwe Schindler" <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Java 8 will get released (hopefully, but I trust the release plan!) on March
> 18, 2014. Because of this, lots of developers will move to Java 8, too. This
> makes maintaining 3 versions for developing Lucene 4.x not easy anymore
> (unless you have cool JAVA_HOME "cmd" launcher scriptsusing StEXBar
> available for your Windows Explorer - or similar stuff in Linux).
>
> I think we should release Lucene 5 with Java 7 as minimum requirement quite
> soon - I could act as release manager. Unfortunately we have not many new
> features (as most stuff was backported, breaking backwards compatibility),
> but we should really work on releasing it. In my opinion, Java 7 minimum
> requirement is a good reason for a major version bump. I don't think we
> should add another 4.x release series! I would prefer to move branch_4x to
> the attic and disable its Jenkins builds. This would also allow to remove
> support for crazy JRockit, because there is no longer JRockit for Java 7.
>
> Uwe
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: Release Lucene 5?
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
Ok, then let’s release 4.8 using Java 7 as minimum requirement! Both is fine to me. I just want Java 6 go away!
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
<http://www.thetaphi.de/> http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 1:35 PM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Release Lucene 5?
Sorry, but I disagree. We shouldn't release a new major version for arbitrary reasons. Meanwhile the 4.x releases keep getting better, maybe it could go to 4.12 or 4.15 before 4.x runs out of steam.
On Mar 8, 2014 6:27 AM, "Uwe Schindler" <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
Hi all,
Java 8 will get released (hopefully, but I trust the release plan!) on March 18, 2014. Because of this, lots of developers will move to Java 8, too. This makes maintaining 3 versions for developing Lucene 4.x not easy anymore (unless you have cool JAVA_HOME "cmd" launcher scriptsusing StEXBar available for your Windows Explorer - or similar stuff in Linux).
I think we should release Lucene 5 with Java 7 as minimum requirement quite soon - I could act as release manager. Unfortunately we have not many new features (as most stuff was backported, breaking backwards compatibility), but we should really work on releasing it. In my opinion, Java 7 minimum requirement is a good reason for a major version bump. I don't think we should add another 4.x release series! I would prefer to move branch_4x to the attic and disable its Jenkins builds. This would also allow to remove support for crazy JRockit, because there is no longer JRockit for Java 7.
Uwe
-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Release Lucene 5?
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
Sorry, but I disagree. We shouldn't release a new major version for
arbitrary reasons. Meanwhile the 4.x releases keep getting better, maybe it
could go to 4.12 or 4.15 before 4.x runs out of steam.
On Mar 8, 2014 6:27 AM, "Uwe Schindler" <uw...@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Java 8 will get released (hopefully, but I trust the release plan!) on
> March 18, 2014. Because of this, lots of developers will move to Java 8,
> too. This makes maintaining 3 versions for developing Lucene 4.x not easy
> anymore (unless you have cool JAVA_HOME "cmd" launcher scriptsusing StEXBar
> available for your Windows Explorer - or similar stuff in Linux).
>
> I think we should release Lucene 5 with Java 7 as minimum requirement
> quite soon - I could act as release manager. Unfortunately we have not many
> new features (as most stuff was backported, breaking backwards
> compatibility), but we should really work on releasing it. In my opinion,
> Java 7 minimum requirement is a good reason for a major version bump. I
> don't think we should add another 4.x release series! I would prefer to
> move branch_4x to the attic and disable its Jenkins builds. This would also
> allow to remove support for crazy JRockit, because there is no longer
> JRockit for Java 7.
>
> Uwe
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>