back compat policy changes?

[Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>]

(Please remain calm, this is just a request for clarification/summation)

As I slowly catch up on the 9000+ Lucene related emails that I accumulated 
during my 2 month hiatus, I notice several rather large threads (i think 
totally ~400 messages) on the subject of our back compat policy (where 
it works, where it's failing us; where it hurts users because it works as 
designed, where it hurts users because it doesn't work as designed; how we 
could change it to be better, why we shouldn't change it; etc...)

I won't pretend that i've read all of those messages ... i won't even 
pretend that I've skimmed all those messages, but i did skim *some* of 
those messages, and in some of the later threads there seemed to be a lot 
of concensus about ideas that (as far as i can tell) were not just "leave 
things alone".

With that in mind, i was kind of suprised to see that the neither of the 
two wiki pages (that i know of) related to backwards compatibility have 
been updated since *well* before all of the recent threads...

http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/BackwardsCompatibility?action=info
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/Java_1%2e5_Migration?action=info

My request is that someone who was involved in the previous discussions 
take a stab at updating one or both of those docs to reflect what the 
concensus of the community was.  Other people can then review the diff for 
those documentation changes and spot check ewther they feel it reflects 
the concensus as they understand it.  But until the written policy has 
been changed, our policy (by definition) hasn't really been changed.


 	In short: "Patches Welcome!"


-Hoss


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org

Re: back compat policy changes?

[Michael Busch <bu...@gmail.com>]

Hey Hoss,

Almost everyone agreed to the backwards-compatibility changes I posted 
here: JIRA-1698. (It turned out that Shai had proposed an almost 
identical proposal in one of the long threads that I admittedly didn't 
fully read either).

I suggested to send a note to java-user to get some feedback from the 
users. Then we should have an official vote on java-dev to decide 
formally if we want to change the policy according to the proposal.

I haven't sent the mail to java-user yet. But it's on my (long) list of 
things to do....

  Michael

On 6/24/09 5:22 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
> (Please remain calm, this is just a request for clarification/summation)
>
> As I slowly catch up on the 9000+ Lucene related emails that I 
> accumulated during my 2 month hiatus, I notice several rather large 
> threads (i think totally ~400 messages) on the subject of our back 
> compat policy (where it works, where it's failing us; where it hurts 
> users because it works as designed, where it hurts users because it 
> doesn't work as designed; how we could change it to be better, why we 
> shouldn't change it; etc...)
>
> I won't pretend that i've read all of those messages ... i won't even 
> pretend that I've skimmed all those messages, but i did skim *some* of 
> those messages, and in some of the later threads there seemed to be a 
> lot of concensus about ideas that (as far as i can tell) were not just 
> "leave things alone".
>
> With that in mind, i was kind of suprised to see that the neither of 
> the two wiki pages (that i know of) related to backwards compatibility 
> have been updated since *well* before all of the recent threads...
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/BackwardsCompatibility?action=info
> http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/Java_1%2e5_Migration?action=info
>
> My request is that someone who was involved in the previous 
> discussions take a stab at updating one or both of those docs to 
> reflect what the concensus of the community was.  Other people can 
> then review the diff for those documentation changes and spot check 
> ewther they feel it reflects the concensus as they understand it.  But 
> until the written policy has been changed, our policy (by definition) 
> hasn't really been changed.
>
>
>     In short: "Patches Welcome!"
>
>
> -Hoss
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org