You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> on 2009/10/22 19:48:47 UTC
contrib and lucene 3.0
Hi,
What is the consensus on new features for contrib for Lucene 3.0? I know
that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and deprecation removal.
I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the right version, but I figured
its really not just about that specific issue, I would like to know the
plans in general.
Thanks,
Robert
--
Robert Muir
rcmuir@gmail.com
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
by the way, this russian example is only one I'm familiar with, its hardly
the only new deprecation introduced in 3.0
theres been other new features added to contrib in 3.0, and theres been
other new deprecations added to contrib in 3.0
I saw this when I started trying to clear out the contrib deprecations
earlier today, some of them were just added.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Grant, in this case the new contribution does not require any deprecation,
> it is another implementation for regex and wildcard query that works a bit
> differently than the others.
>
> Not to stray off-topic, but your comment does apply to
> RussianLowerCaseFilter, which is currently marked deprecated in 3.0.
> Until the custom-encoding junk (deprecated in 2.9) was removed, I couldn't
> easily tell that it was simply a duplicate of LowerCaseFilter...
> for now its marked deprecated in 3.0 to be removed in 4.0
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> How do you handle deprecations of old stuff for the new contribution
>> (assuming it needs it)? Seems weird to have a major release that
>> immediately has deprecations. At the same time, it seems weird to have a
>> major release that doesn't contain new features. If anything, it is our
>> best opportunity to put in new stuff
>>
>> Traditionally, the only difference between .9 and .0 has been removal of
>> deprecations. This time around we are saying also JDK 1.5.
>>
>> Not saying we can't do it, just wondering.
>>
>> On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:31 PM, DM Smith wrote:
>>
>> I don't see any reason to freeze new contributions from any release.
>>
>> On 10/30/2009 03:19 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
>>
>> thanks Michael.
>>
>> does anyone else have any opinion on this issue?
>> fyi we already have several new features committed to 3.0 contrib already
>> (see contrib/CHANGES),
>> but I don't too much care either way, if I should not be adding this
>> feature to 3.0, I'd like to set the version in jira to 3.1
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Michael McCandless <
>> lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think we should allow new features into contrib for 3.0.
>>>
>>> I don't even like holding new features from core for 3.0.
>>>
>>> In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is locked down....
>>> Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing ahead at all times.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > What is the consensus on new features for contrib for Lucene 3.0? I
>>> know
>>> > that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and deprecation removal.
>>> >
>>> > I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the right version, but I
>>> figured
>>> > its really not just about that specific issue, I would like to know the
>>> > plans in general.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Robert
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Robert Muir
>>> > rcmuir@gmail.com
>>> >
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Robert Muir
>> rcmuir@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com
>
--
Robert Muir
rcmuir@gmail.com
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
Grant, in this case the new contribution does not require any deprecation,
it is another implementation for regex and wildcard query that works a bit
differently than the others.
Not to stray off-topic, but your comment does apply to
RussianLowerCaseFilter, which is currently marked deprecated in 3.0.
Until the custom-encoding junk (deprecated in 2.9) was removed, I couldn't
easily tell that it was simply a duplicate of LowerCaseFilter...
for now its marked deprecated in 3.0 to be removed in 4.0
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>wrote:
> How do you handle deprecations of old stuff for the new contribution
> (assuming it needs it)? Seems weird to have a major release that
> immediately has deprecations. At the same time, it seems weird to have a
> major release that doesn't contain new features. If anything, it is our
> best opportunity to put in new stuff
>
> Traditionally, the only difference between .9 and .0 has been removal of
> deprecations. This time around we are saying also JDK 1.5.
>
> Not saying we can't do it, just wondering.
>
> On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:31 PM, DM Smith wrote:
>
> I don't see any reason to freeze new contributions from any release.
>
> On 10/30/2009 03:19 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
>
> thanks Michael.
>
> does anyone else have any opinion on this issue?
> fyi we already have several new features committed to 3.0 contrib already
> (see contrib/CHANGES),
> but I don't too much care either way, if I should not be adding this
> feature to 3.0, I'd like to set the version in jira to 3.1
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Michael McCandless <
> lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>
>> I think we should allow new features into contrib for 3.0.
>>
>> I don't even like holding new features from core for 3.0.
>>
>> In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is locked down....
>> Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing ahead at all times.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > What is the consensus on new features for contrib for Lucene 3.0? I know
>> > that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and deprecation removal.
>> >
>> > I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the right version, but I
>> figured
>> > its really not just about that specific issue, I would like to know the
>> > plans in general.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Robert
>> >
>> > --
>> > Robert Muir
>> > rcmuir@gmail.com
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
--
Robert Muir
rcmuir@gmail.com
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
definitely wasn't trying to single you out, again.
besides, this isn't the only instance. just the one that i could remember.
I'll set LUCENE-1606 to 3.1, even tho it doesn't deprecate anything, lets
focus on clearing this shit up and making a clean 3.0 release.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Michael McCandless <
lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> Mea culpa ;) (on LUCENE-1781)
>
> And I agree we need a better solution in general. I think not
> deprecating new stuff until the .0 release is out seems best? I think
> this .0 release is also especially challenging because we're (well,
> Uwe and a few others -- thanks)'re taking advantage of 1.5's new
> features. Hopefully, for 4.0, it'll be less work and faster
> turnaround.
>
> Mike
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Negative shcmegative :)
> >
> > Your right - this needs to be handled better. If we are going to add new
> > deprecations before all of the old deprecations are removed, there needs
> > to be help in the javadocs.
> >
> > Of course its nothing against those that did it - they likely didn't see
> > this issue - I don't think any of us ever care about blame or fault.
> > Just solutions ;) And this needs one.
> >
> > Robert Muir wrote:
> >> I don't want to come across as negative here... i'm not trying to
> >> single anyone out,
> >> just a bit confused as to why my issue was singled out when theres
> >> already been both new features and new deprecations added to 3.0,
> >> and the issue in question doesnt even have any deprecations. then
> >> again i don't really care if its in 3.0 or 3.1, but its just wierd.
> >>
> >> a search on 'deprecated' in contrib is pretty enlightening.
> >>
> >> here's an example from spatial: DistanceApproximation entire class
> >> deprecated!
> >>
> >> * @deprecated This has been replaced with more accurate
> >> * math in {@link LLRect}.
> >>
> >> this deprecation traces back to LUCENE-1781, which is marked as Fix
> >> Version 2.9
> >> makes me want to delete it, except if you check contrib/CHANGES, you
> >> see it wasn't actually applied until 3.0
> >> so it shouldnt be deleted yet.
> >>
> >> again, not trying to be negative, +1 to both the contributor(s) and
> >> committers that fixed this bug in spatial, as I sure don't understand
> it.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com
> >> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> What deprecations were already added?
> >>
> >> Robert Muir wrote:
> >> > well, not to complain, but I will mention on this topic.
> >> >
> >> > If something is marked deprecated, its 10x easier if in the
> javadocs
> >> > there is some version information applied.
> >> >
> >> > In the wild west that is contrib, its currently a bit difficult
> >> for me
> >> > to clear out the deprecations from 2.9, because there are new
> >> > deprecations added in 3.0.
> >> > it takes svn annotate + jira + CHANGES to figure out exactly what
> >> > should be cleared out (and sometimes these all seem to disagree,
> Fix
> >> > Version != Changes, etc etc)
> >> >
> >> > This is why i only did part of LUCENE-2022
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Mark Miller
> >> <markrmiller@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> >> > <mailto:markrmiller@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I have no problem with new features either - but I would
> >> vote that
> >> > if it
> >> > requires new deprecations, it should wait.
> >> >
> >> > I think its nice to have a clean release first. And I also
> >> don't think
> >> > any of this features should hold up the 3.0 release. Lets
> >> get it out -
> >> > then focus on new features.
> >> >
> >> > Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> >> > > How do you handle deprecations of old stuff for the new
> >> contribution
> >> > > (assuming it needs it)? Seems weird to have a major
> >> release that
> >> > > immediately has deprecations. At the same time, it seems
> >> weird to
> >> > > have a major release that doesn't contain new features. If
> >> > anything,
> >> > > it is our best opportunity to put in new stuff
> >> > >
> >> > > Traditionally, the only difference between .9 and .0 has
> been
> >> > removal
> >> > > of deprecations. This time around we are saying also JDK
> 1.5.
> >> > >
> >> > > Not saying we can't do it, just wondering.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:31 PM, DM Smith wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> I don't see any reason to freeze new contributions from any
> >> > release.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On 10/30/2009 03:19 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> >> > >>> thanks Michael.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> does anyone else have any opinion on this issue?
> >> > >>> fyi we already have several new features committed to
> >> 3.0 contrib
> >> > >>> already (see contrib/CHANGES),
> >> > >>> but I don't too much care either way, if I should not be
> >> > adding this
> >> > >>> feature to 3.0, I'd like to set the version in jira to 3.1
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Michael McCandless
> >> > >>> <lucene@mikemccandless.com
> >> <ma...@mikemccandless.com>
> >> <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com
> >>
> >> > <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com
> >> <ma...@mikemccandless.com>
> >> > <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com
> >> <ma...@mikemccandless.com>>>> wrote:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I think we should allow new features into contrib
> >> for 3.0.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I don't even like holding new features from core for
> >> 3.0.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is
> >> locked
> >> > down....
> >> > >>> Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing
> >> ahead at
> >> > all times.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Mike
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Muir
> >> > <rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >> > >>> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
> >> > >>> > Hi,
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > What is the consensus on new features for contrib
> >> for Lucene
> >> > >>> 3.0? I know
> >> > >>> > that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and
> >> deprecation
> >> > >>> removal.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the
> >> right version,
> >> > >>> but I figured
> >> > >>> > its really not just about that specific issue, I
> would
> >> > like to
> >> > >>> know the
> >> > >>> > plans in general.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > Thanks,
> >> > >>> > Robert
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > --
> >> > >>> > Robert Muir
> >> > >>> > rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >> > <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> >
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> >> > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
> >> > >>> <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> >> > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>>
> >> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> >> > <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
> >> > >>> <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> >> > <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> --
> >> > >>> Robert Muir
> >> > >>> rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >> > <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > - Mark
> >> >
> >> > http://www.lucidimagination.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> >> > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> >> > <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Robert Muir
> >> > rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> - Mark
> >>
> >> http://www.lucidimagination.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Robert Muir
> >> rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Mark
> >
> > http://www.lucidimagination.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
>
--
Robert Muir
rcmuir@gmail.com
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
Mea culpa ;) (on LUCENE-1781)
And I agree we need a better solution in general. I think not
deprecating new stuff until the .0 release is out seems best? I think
this .0 release is also especially challenging because we're (well,
Uwe and a few others -- thanks)'re taking advantage of 1.5's new
features. Hopefully, for 4.0, it'll be less work and faster
turnaround.
Mike
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Negative shcmegative :)
>
> Your right - this needs to be handled better. If we are going to add new
> deprecations before all of the old deprecations are removed, there needs
> to be help in the javadocs.
>
> Of course its nothing against those that did it - they likely didn't see
> this issue - I don't think any of us ever care about blame or fault.
> Just solutions ;) And this needs one.
>
> Robert Muir wrote:
>> I don't want to come across as negative here... i'm not trying to
>> single anyone out,
>> just a bit confused as to why my issue was singled out when theres
>> already been both new features and new deprecations added to 3.0,
>> and the issue in question doesnt even have any deprecations. then
>> again i don't really care if its in 3.0 or 3.1, but its just wierd.
>>
>> a search on 'deprecated' in contrib is pretty enlightening.
>>
>> here's an example from spatial: DistanceApproximation entire class
>> deprecated!
>>
>> * @deprecated This has been replaced with more accurate
>> * math in {@link LLRect}.
>>
>> this deprecation traces back to LUCENE-1781, which is marked as Fix
>> Version 2.9
>> makes me want to delete it, except if you check contrib/CHANGES, you
>> see it wasn't actually applied until 3.0
>> so it shouldnt be deleted yet.
>>
>> again, not trying to be negative, +1 to both the contributor(s) and
>> committers that fixed this bug in spatial, as I sure don't understand it.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com
>> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> What deprecations were already added?
>>
>> Robert Muir wrote:
>> > well, not to complain, but I will mention on this topic.
>> >
>> > If something is marked deprecated, its 10x easier if in the javadocs
>> > there is some version information applied.
>> >
>> > In the wild west that is contrib, its currently a bit difficult
>> for me
>> > to clear out the deprecations from 2.9, because there are new
>> > deprecations added in 3.0.
>> > it takes svn annotate + jira + CHANGES to figure out exactly what
>> > should be cleared out (and sometimes these all seem to disagree, Fix
>> > Version != Changes, etc etc)
>> >
>> > This is why i only did part of LUCENE-2022
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Mark Miller
>> <markrmiller@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>> > <mailto:markrmiller@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I have no problem with new features either - but I would
>> vote that
>> > if it
>> > requires new deprecations, it should wait.
>> >
>> > I think its nice to have a clean release first. And I also
>> don't think
>> > any of this features should hold up the 3.0 release. Lets
>> get it out -
>> > then focus on new features.
>> >
>> > Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> > > How do you handle deprecations of old stuff for the new
>> contribution
>> > > (assuming it needs it)? Seems weird to have a major
>> release that
>> > > immediately has deprecations. At the same time, it seems
>> weird to
>> > > have a major release that doesn't contain new features. If
>> > anything,
>> > > it is our best opportunity to put in new stuff
>> > >
>> > > Traditionally, the only difference between .9 and .0 has been
>> > removal
>> > > of deprecations. This time around we are saying also JDK 1.5.
>> > >
>> > > Not saying we can't do it, just wondering.
>> > >
>> > > On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:31 PM, DM Smith wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I don't see any reason to freeze new contributions from any
>> > release.
>> > >>
>> > >> On 10/30/2009 03:19 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
>> > >>> thanks Michael.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> does anyone else have any opinion on this issue?
>> > >>> fyi we already have several new features committed to
>> 3.0 contrib
>> > >>> already (see contrib/CHANGES),
>> > >>> but I don't too much care either way, if I should not be
>> > adding this
>> > >>> feature to 3.0, I'd like to set the version in jira to 3.1
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Michael McCandless
>> > >>> <lucene@mikemccandless.com
>> <ma...@mikemccandless.com>
>> <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com <ma...@mikemccandless.com>>
>> > <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com
>> <ma...@mikemccandless.com>
>> > <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com
>> <ma...@mikemccandless.com>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I think we should allow new features into contrib
>> for 3.0.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I don't even like holding new features from core for
>> 3.0.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is
>> locked
>> > down....
>> > >>> Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing
>> ahead at
>> > all times.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Mike
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Muir
>> > <rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> > >>> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
>> > >>> > Hi,
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > What is the consensus on new features for contrib
>> for Lucene
>> > >>> 3.0? I know
>> > >>> > that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and
>> deprecation
>> > >>> removal.
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the
>> right version,
>> > >>> but I figured
>> > >>> > its really not just about that specific issue, I would
>> > like to
>> > >>> know the
>> > >>> > plans in general.
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > Thanks,
>> > >>> > Robert
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > --
>> > >>> > Robert Muir
>> > >>> > rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> > <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>
>> > >>> >
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
>> > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
>> > >>> <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
>> > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>>
>> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
>> > <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
>> > >>> <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
>> > <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> --
>> > >>> Robert Muir
>> > >>> rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> > <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > - Mark
>> >
>> > http://www.lucidimagination.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
>> > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
>> > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
>> > <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Robert Muir
>> > rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> - Mark
>>
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Robert Muir
>> rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
Negative shcmegative :)
Your right - this needs to be handled better. If we are going to add new
deprecations before all of the old deprecations are removed, there needs
to be help in the javadocs.
Of course its nothing against those that did it - they likely didn't see
this issue - I don't think any of us ever care about blame or fault.
Just solutions ;) And this needs one.
Robert Muir wrote:
> I don't want to come across as negative here... i'm not trying to
> single anyone out,
> just a bit confused as to why my issue was singled out when theres
> already been both new features and new deprecations added to 3.0,
> and the issue in question doesnt even have any deprecations. then
> again i don't really care if its in 3.0 or 3.1, but its just wierd.
>
> a search on 'deprecated' in contrib is pretty enlightening.
>
> here's an example from spatial: DistanceApproximation entire class
> deprecated!
>
> * @deprecated This has been replaced with more accurate
> * math in {@link LLRect}.
>
> this deprecation traces back to LUCENE-1781, which is marked as Fix
> Version 2.9
> makes me want to delete it, except if you check contrib/CHANGES, you
> see it wasn't actually applied until 3.0
> so it shouldnt be deleted yet.
>
> again, not trying to be negative, +1 to both the contributor(s) and
> committers that fixed this bug in spatial, as I sure don't understand it.
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> What deprecations were already added?
>
> Robert Muir wrote:
> > well, not to complain, but I will mention on this topic.
> >
> > If something is marked deprecated, its 10x easier if in the javadocs
> > there is some version information applied.
> >
> > In the wild west that is contrib, its currently a bit difficult
> for me
> > to clear out the deprecations from 2.9, because there are new
> > deprecations added in 3.0.
> > it takes svn annotate + jira + CHANGES to figure out exactly what
> > should be cleared out (and sometimes these all seem to disagree, Fix
> > Version != Changes, etc etc)
> >
> > This is why i only did part of LUCENE-2022
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Mark Miller
> <markrmiller@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:markrmiller@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>
> wrote:
> >
> > I have no problem with new features either - but I would
> vote that
> > if it
> > requires new deprecations, it should wait.
> >
> > I think its nice to have a clean release first. And I also
> don't think
> > any of this features should hold up the 3.0 release. Lets
> get it out -
> > then focus on new features.
> >
> > Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> > > How do you handle deprecations of old stuff for the new
> contribution
> > > (assuming it needs it)? Seems weird to have a major
> release that
> > > immediately has deprecations. At the same time, it seems
> weird to
> > > have a major release that doesn't contain new features. If
> > anything,
> > > it is our best opportunity to put in new stuff
> > >
> > > Traditionally, the only difference between .9 and .0 has been
> > removal
> > > of deprecations. This time around we are saying also JDK 1.5.
> > >
> > > Not saying we can't do it, just wondering.
> > >
> > > On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:31 PM, DM Smith wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't see any reason to freeze new contributions from any
> > release.
> > >>
> > >> On 10/30/2009 03:19 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> > >>> thanks Michael.
> > >>>
> > >>> does anyone else have any opinion on this issue?
> > >>> fyi we already have several new features committed to
> 3.0 contrib
> > >>> already (see contrib/CHANGES),
> > >>> but I don't too much care either way, if I should not be
> > adding this
> > >>> feature to 3.0, I'd like to set the version in jira to 3.1
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Michael McCandless
> > >>> <lucene@mikemccandless.com
> <ma...@mikemccandless.com>
> <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com <ma...@mikemccandless.com>>
> > <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com
> <ma...@mikemccandless.com>
> > <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com
> <ma...@mikemccandless.com>>>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I think we should allow new features into contrib
> for 3.0.
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't even like holding new features from core for
> 3.0.
> > >>>
> > >>> In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is
> locked
> > down....
> > >>> Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing
> ahead at
> > all times.
> > >>>
> > >>> Mike
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Muir
> > <rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> > >>> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
> > >>> > Hi,
> > >>> >
> > >>> > What is the consensus on new features for contrib
> for Lucene
> > >>> 3.0? I know
> > >>> > that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and
> deprecation
> > >>> removal.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the
> right version,
> > >>> but I figured
> > >>> > its really not just about that specific issue, I would
> > like to
> > >>> know the
> > >>> > plans in general.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Thanks,
> > >>> > Robert
> > >>> >
> > >>> > --
> > >>> > Robert Muir
> > >>> > rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> > <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
> > >>> <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>>
> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> > <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
> > >>> <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> > <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Robert Muir
> > >>> rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> > <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Mark
> >
> > http://www.lucidimagination.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> > <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Robert Muir
> > rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Oct 30, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't want to come across as negative here... i'm not trying to
> single anyone out,
> just a bit confused as to why my issue was singled out when theres
> already been both new features and new deprecations added to 3.0,
> and the issue in question doesnt even have any deprecations. then
> again i don't really care if its in 3.0 or 3.1, but its just wierd.
>
It was just because your issue caught my eye because I tend to keep a
closer eye on the language stuff because it's an area of interest.
Nothing personal.
> a search on 'deprecated' in contrib is pretty enlightening.
>
> here's an example from spatial: DistanceApproximation entire class
> deprecated!
>
> * @deprecated This has been replaced with more accurate
> * math in {@link LLRect}.
>
> this deprecation traces back to LUCENE-1781, which is marked as Fix
> Version 2.9
> makes me want to delete it, except if you check contrib/CHANGES, you
> see it wasn't actually applied until 3.0
> so it shouldnt be deleted yet.
>
> again, not trying to be negative, +1 to both the contributor(s) and
> committers that fixed this bug in spatial, as I sure don't
> understand it.
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> What deprecations were already added?
>
> Robert Muir wrote:
> > well, not to complain, but I will mention on this topic.
> >
> > If something is marked deprecated, its 10x easier if in the javadocs
> > there is some version information applied.
> >
> > In the wild west that is contrib, its currently a bit difficult
> for me
> > to clear out the deprecations from 2.9, because there are new
> > deprecations added in 3.0.
> > it takes svn annotate + jira + CHANGES to figure out exactly what
> > should be cleared out (and sometimes these all seem to disagree, Fix
> > Version != Changes, etc etc)
> >
> > This is why i only did part of LUCENE-2022
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com
> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I have no problem with new features either - but I would vote
> that
> > if it
> > requires new deprecations, it should wait.
> >
> > I think its nice to have a clean release first. And I also
> don't think
> > any of this features should hold up the 3.0 release. Lets get
> it out -
> > then focus on new features.
> >
> > Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> > > How do you handle deprecations of old stuff for the new
> contribution
> > > (assuming it needs it)? Seems weird to have a major release
> that
> > > immediately has deprecations. At the same time, it seems
> weird to
> > > have a major release that doesn't contain new features. If
> > anything,
> > > it is our best opportunity to put in new stuff
> > >
> > > Traditionally, the only difference between .9 and .0 has been
> > removal
> > > of deprecations. This time around we are saying also JDK 1.5.
> > >
> > > Not saying we can't do it, just wondering.
> > >
> > > On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:31 PM, DM Smith wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't see any reason to freeze new contributions from any
> > release.
> > >>
> > >> On 10/30/2009 03:19 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> > >>> thanks Michael.
> > >>>
> > >>> does anyone else have any opinion on this issue?
> > >>> fyi we already have several new features committed to 3.0
> contrib
> > >>> already (see contrib/CHANGES),
> > >>> but I don't too much care either way, if I should not be
> > adding this
> > >>> feature to 3.0, I'd like to set the version in jira to 3.1
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Michael McCandless
> > >>> <lucene@mikemccandless.com
> <ma...@mikemccandless.com>
> > <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com
> > <ma...@mikemccandless.com>>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I think we should allow new features into contrib for
> 3.0.
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't even like holding new features from core for
> 3.0.
> > >>>
> > >>> In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is
> locked
> > down....
> > >>> Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing ahead
> at
> > all times.
> > >>>
> > >>> Mike
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Muir
> > <rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> > >>> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>>
> wrote:
> > >>> > Hi,
> > >>> >
> > >>> > What is the consensus on new features for contrib
> for Lucene
> > >>> 3.0? I know
> > >>> > that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and
> deprecation
> > >>> removal.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the right
> version,
> > >>> but I figured
> > >>> > its really not just about that specific issue, I would
> > like to
> > >>> know the
> > >>> > plans in general.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Thanks,
> > >>> > Robert
> > >>> >
> > >>> > --
> > >>> > Robert Muir
> > >>> > rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> > >>> <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> > >>> <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Robert Muir
> > >>> rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Mark
> >
> > http://www.lucidimagination.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Robert Muir
> > rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
I don't want to come across as negative here... i'm not trying to single
anyone out,
just a bit confused as to why my issue was singled out when theres already
been both new features and new deprecations added to 3.0,
and the issue in question doesnt even have any deprecations. then again i
don't really care if its in 3.0 or 3.1, but its just wierd.
a search on 'deprecated' in contrib is pretty enlightening.
here's an example from spatial: DistanceApproximation entire class
deprecated!
* @deprecated This has been replaced with more accurate
* math in {@link LLRect}.
this deprecation traces back to LUCENE-1781, which is marked as Fix Version
2.9
makes me want to delete it, except if you check contrib/CHANGES, you see it
wasn't actually applied until 3.0
so it shouldnt be deleted yet.
again, not trying to be negative, +1 to both the contributor(s) and
committers that fixed this bug in spatial, as I sure don't understand it.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What deprecations were already added?
>
> Robert Muir wrote:
> > well, not to complain, but I will mention on this topic.
> >
> > If something is marked deprecated, its 10x easier if in the javadocs
> > there is some version information applied.
> >
> > In the wild west that is contrib, its currently a bit difficult for me
> > to clear out the deprecations from 2.9, because there are new
> > deprecations added in 3.0.
> > it takes svn annotate + jira + CHANGES to figure out exactly what
> > should be cleared out (and sometimes these all seem to disagree, Fix
> > Version != Changes, etc etc)
> >
> > This is why i only did part of LUCENE-2022
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com
> > <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I have no problem with new features either - but I would vote that
> > if it
> > requires new deprecations, it should wait.
> >
> > I think its nice to have a clean release first. And I also don't
> think
> > any of this features should hold up the 3.0 release. Lets get it out
> -
> > then focus on new features.
> >
> > Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> > > How do you handle deprecations of old stuff for the new
> contribution
> > > (assuming it needs it)? Seems weird to have a major release that
> > > immediately has deprecations. At the same time, it seems weird to
> > > have a major release that doesn't contain new features. If
> > anything,
> > > it is our best opportunity to put in new stuff
> > >
> > > Traditionally, the only difference between .9 and .0 has been
> > removal
> > > of deprecations. This time around we are saying also JDK 1.5.
> > >
> > > Not saying we can't do it, just wondering.
> > >
> > > On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:31 PM, DM Smith wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't see any reason to freeze new contributions from any
> > release.
> > >>
> > >> On 10/30/2009 03:19 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> > >>> thanks Michael.
> > >>>
> > >>> does anyone else have any opinion on this issue?
> > >>> fyi we already have several new features committed to 3.0 contrib
> > >>> already (see contrib/CHANGES),
> > >>> but I don't too much care either way, if I should not be
> > adding this
> > >>> feature to 3.0, I'd like to set the version in jira to 3.1
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Michael McCandless
> > >>> <lucene@mikemccandless.com <ma...@mikemccandless.com>
> > <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com
> > <ma...@mikemccandless.com>>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I think we should allow new features into contrib for 3.0.
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't even like holding new features from core for 3.0.
> > >>>
> > >>> In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is locked
> > down....
> > >>> Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing ahead at
> > all times.
> > >>>
> > >>> Mike
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Muir
> > <rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> > >>> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> > >>> > Hi,
> > >>> >
> > >>> > What is the consensus on new features for contrib for
> Lucene
> > >>> 3.0? I know
> > >>> > that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and deprecation
> > >>> removal.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the right
> version,
> > >>> but I figured
> > >>> > its really not just about that specific issue, I would
> > like to
> > >>> know the
> > >>> > plans in general.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Thanks,
> > >>> > Robert
> > >>> >
> > >>> > --
> > >>> > Robert Muir
> > >>> > rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> > >>> <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> > >>> <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Robert Muir
> > >>> rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Mark
> >
> > http://www.lucidimagination.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Robert Muir
> > rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
--
Robert Muir
rcmuir@gmail.com
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
What deprecations were already added?
Robert Muir wrote:
> well, not to complain, but I will mention on this topic.
>
> If something is marked deprecated, its 10x easier if in the javadocs
> there is some version information applied.
>
> In the wild west that is contrib, its currently a bit difficult for me
> to clear out the deprecations from 2.9, because there are new
> deprecations added in 3.0.
> it takes svn annotate + jira + CHANGES to figure out exactly what
> should be cleared out (and sometimes these all seem to disagree, Fix
> Version != Changes, etc etc)
>
> This is why i only did part of LUCENE-2022
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I have no problem with new features either - but I would vote that
> if it
> requires new deprecations, it should wait.
>
> I think its nice to have a clean release first. And I also don't think
> any of this features should hold up the 3.0 release. Lets get it out -
> then focus on new features.
>
> Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> > How do you handle deprecations of old stuff for the new contribution
> > (assuming it needs it)? Seems weird to have a major release that
> > immediately has deprecations. At the same time, it seems weird to
> > have a major release that doesn't contain new features. If
> anything,
> > it is our best opportunity to put in new stuff
> >
> > Traditionally, the only difference between .9 and .0 has been
> removal
> > of deprecations. This time around we are saying also JDK 1.5.
> >
> > Not saying we can't do it, just wondering.
> >
> > On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:31 PM, DM Smith wrote:
> >
> >> I don't see any reason to freeze new contributions from any
> release.
> >>
> >> On 10/30/2009 03:19 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> >>> thanks Michael.
> >>>
> >>> does anyone else have any opinion on this issue?
> >>> fyi we already have several new features committed to 3.0 contrib
> >>> already (see contrib/CHANGES),
> >>> but I don't too much care either way, if I should not be
> adding this
> >>> feature to 3.0, I'd like to set the version in jira to 3.1
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Michael McCandless
> >>> <lucene@mikemccandless.com <ma...@mikemccandless.com>
> <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com
> <ma...@mikemccandless.com>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think we should allow new features into contrib for 3.0.
> >>>
> >>> I don't even like holding new features from core for 3.0.
> >>>
> >>> In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is locked
> down....
> >>> Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing ahead at
> all times.
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Muir
> <rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> >>> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >>> > Hi,
> >>> >
> >>> > What is the consensus on new features for contrib for Lucene
> >>> 3.0? I know
> >>> > that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and deprecation
> >>> removal.
> >>> >
> >>> > I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the right version,
> >>> but I figured
> >>> > its really not just about that specific issue, I would
> like to
> >>> know the
> >>> > plans in general.
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> > Robert
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Robert Muir
> >>> > rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> >>> <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> >>> <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Robert Muir
> >>> rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
well, not to complain, but I will mention on this topic.
If something is marked deprecated, its 10x easier if in the javadocs there
is some version information applied.
In the wild west that is contrib, its currently a bit difficult for me to
clear out the deprecations from 2.9, because there are new deprecations
added in 3.0.
it takes svn annotate + jira + CHANGES to figure out exactly what should be
cleared out (and sometimes these all seem to disagree, Fix Version !=
Changes, etc etc)
This is why i only did part of LUCENE-2022
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have no problem with new features either - but I would vote that if it
> requires new deprecations, it should wait.
>
> I think its nice to have a clean release first. And I also don't think
> any of this features should hold up the 3.0 release. Lets get it out -
> then focus on new features.
>
> Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> > How do you handle deprecations of old stuff for the new contribution
> > (assuming it needs it)? Seems weird to have a major release that
> > immediately has deprecations. At the same time, it seems weird to
> > have a major release that doesn't contain new features. If anything,
> > it is our best opportunity to put in new stuff
> >
> > Traditionally, the only difference between .9 and .0 has been removal
> > of deprecations. This time around we are saying also JDK 1.5.
> >
> > Not saying we can't do it, just wondering.
> >
> > On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:31 PM, DM Smith wrote:
> >
> >> I don't see any reason to freeze new contributions from any release.
> >>
> >> On 10/30/2009 03:19 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> >>> thanks Michael.
> >>>
> >>> does anyone else have any opinion on this issue?
> >>> fyi we already have several new features committed to 3.0 contrib
> >>> already (see contrib/CHANGES),
> >>> but I don't too much care either way, if I should not be adding this
> >>> feature to 3.0, I'd like to set the version in jira to 3.1
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Michael McCandless
> >>> <lucene@mikemccandless.com <ma...@mikemccandless.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think we should allow new features into contrib for 3.0.
> >>>
> >>> I don't even like holding new features from core for 3.0.
> >>>
> >>> In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is locked down....
> >>> Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing ahead at all
> times.
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com
> >>> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>> > Hi,
> >>> >
> >>> > What is the consensus on new features for contrib for Lucene
> >>> 3.0? I know
> >>> > that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and deprecation
> >>> removal.
> >>> >
> >>> > I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the right version,
> >>> but I figured
> >>> > its really not just about that specific issue, I would like to
> >>> know the
> >>> > plans in general.
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> > Robert
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Robert Muir
> >>> > rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Robert Muir
> >>> rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
--
Robert Muir
rcmuir@gmail.com
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
Posted by Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>.
I have no problem with new features either - but I would vote that if it
requires new deprecations, it should wait.
I think its nice to have a clean release first. And I also don't think
any of this features should hold up the 3.0 release. Lets get it out -
then focus on new features.
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> How do you handle deprecations of old stuff for the new contribution
> (assuming it needs it)? Seems weird to have a major release that
> immediately has deprecations. At the same time, it seems weird to
> have a major release that doesn't contain new features. If anything,
> it is our best opportunity to put in new stuff
>
> Traditionally, the only difference between .9 and .0 has been removal
> of deprecations. This time around we are saying also JDK 1.5.
>
> Not saying we can't do it, just wondering.
>
> On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:31 PM, DM Smith wrote:
>
>> I don't see any reason to freeze new contributions from any release.
>>
>> On 10/30/2009 03:19 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
>>> thanks Michael.
>>>
>>> does anyone else have any opinion on this issue?
>>> fyi we already have several new features committed to 3.0 contrib
>>> already (see contrib/CHANGES),
>>> but I don't too much care either way, if I should not be adding this
>>> feature to 3.0, I'd like to set the version in jira to 3.1
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Michael McCandless
>>> <lucene@mikemccandless.com <ma...@mikemccandless.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we should allow new features into contrib for 3.0.
>>>
>>> I don't even like holding new features from core for 3.0.
>>>
>>> In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is locked down....
>>> Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing ahead at all times.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com
>>> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > What is the consensus on new features for contrib for Lucene
>>> 3.0? I know
>>> > that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and deprecation
>>> removal.
>>> >
>>> > I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the right version,
>>> but I figured
>>> > its really not just about that specific issue, I would like to
>>> know the
>>> > plans in general.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Robert
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Robert Muir
>>> > rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> >
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Robert Muir
>>> rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
>>
>
>
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
How do you handle deprecations of old stuff for the new contribution
(assuming it needs it)? Seems weird to have a major release that
immediately has deprecations. At the same time, it seems weird to
have a major release that doesn't contain new features. If anything,
it is our best opportunity to put in new stuff
Traditionally, the only difference between .9 and .0 has been removal
of deprecations. This time around we are saying also JDK 1.5.
Not saying we can't do it, just wondering.
On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:31 PM, DM Smith wrote:
> I don't see any reason to freeze new contributions from any release.
>
> On 10/30/2009 03:19 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
>>
>> thanks Michael.
>>
>> does anyone else have any opinion on this issue?
>> fyi we already have several new features committed to 3.0 contrib
>> already (see contrib/CHANGES),
>> but I don't too much care either way, if I should not be adding
>> this feature to 3.0, I'd like to set the version in jira to 3.1
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Michael McCandless <lucene@mikemccandless.com
>> > wrote:
>> I think we should allow new features into contrib for 3.0.
>>
>> I don't even like holding new features from core for 3.0.
>>
>> In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is locked down....
>> Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing ahead at all times.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > What is the consensus on new features for contrib for Lucene 3.0?
>> I know
>> > that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and deprecation removal.
>> >
>> > I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the right version, but
>> I figured
>> > its really not just about that specific issue, I would like to
>> know the
>> > plans in general.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Robert
>> >
>> > --
>> > Robert Muir
>> > rcmuir@gmail.com
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Robert Muir
>> rcmuir@gmail.com
>
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
Posted by DM Smith <dm...@gmail.com>.
I don't see any reason to freeze new contributions from any release.
On 10/30/2009 03:19 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> thanks Michael.
>
> does anyone else have any opinion on this issue?
> fyi we already have several new features committed to 3.0 contrib
> already (see contrib/CHANGES),
> but I don't too much care either way, if I should not be adding this
> feature to 3.0, I'd like to set the version in jira to 3.1
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Michael McCandless
> <lucene@mikemccandless.com <ma...@mikemccandless.com>> wrote:
>
> I think we should allow new features into contrib for 3.0.
>
> I don't even like holding new features from core for 3.0.
>
> In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is locked down....
> Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing ahead at all times.
>
> Mike
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > What is the consensus on new features for contrib for Lucene
> 3.0? I know
> > that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and deprecation removal.
> >
> > I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the right version, but
> I figured
> > its really not just about that specific issue, I would like to
> know the
> > plans in general.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Robert
> >
> > --
> > Robert Muir
> > rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> <ma...@lucene.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
thanks Michael.
does anyone else have any opinion on this issue?
fyi we already have several new features committed to 3.0 contrib already
(see contrib/CHANGES),
but I don't too much care either way, if I should not be adding this feature
to 3.0, I'd like to set the version in jira to 3.1
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Michael McCandless <
lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> I think we should allow new features into contrib for 3.0.
>
> I don't even like holding new features from core for 3.0.
>
> In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is locked down....
> Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing ahead at all times.
>
> Mike
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > What is the consensus on new features for contrib for Lucene 3.0? I know
> > that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and deprecation removal.
> >
> > I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the right version, but I
> figured
> > its really not just about that specific issue, I would like to know the
> > plans in general.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Robert
> >
> > --
> > Robert Muir
> > rcmuir@gmail.com
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
--
Robert Muir
rcmuir@gmail.com
Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
Posted by Michael McCandless <lu...@mikemccandless.com>.
I think we should allow new features into contrib for 3.0.
I don't even like holding new features from core for 3.0.
In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is locked down....
Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing ahead at all times.
Mike
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is the consensus on new features for contrib for Lucene 3.0? I know
> that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and deprecation removal.
>
> I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the right version, but I figured
> its really not just about that specific issue, I would like to know the
> plans in general.
>
> Thanks,
> Robert
>
> --
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org