FYI, we are following this proposal: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-dev/201409.mbox/%3CCAOdYfZUpAbYp-omdw=ngjsdzbkvhn2zydobzvj1gdxk+lrt...@mail.gmail.com%3E
Uwe ----- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 7:38 PM > To: '[email protected]' > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] The next Lucene/Solr release, aka 5.0 is the new 4.11 > > Hi Steve, > > Robert is currently backporting the "non-critical" stuff from Lucene 5. There > is > some code in 5.0, which is not ready to commit (like Lucene Stored > Document's API). The approach above was just done like that for ease of > handling. In fact, Robert created a "big patch" between trunk an branch_5x > and removed all stuff that’s not ready for release. This would then be > committed to 5.x branch for release. > > So the current workflow may be "untypical" but at the end was easier to > handle than "reverting" changes in trunk that are not ready to release. > > We are not going to release the state of the branching today, it was just a > step inbetween. After Robert's hard work we will have a large number of > changes in 5.0, especially those breaking backwards compatibility (like the > final move to Java 7 NIO.2). We are just inbetween at the moment. Stuff > that’s unfinished (like we removed WAR file in trunk, but in contrast have no > real Lucene Server with main() method, servlet free is not releaseable) were > left out. > > Uwe > > ----- > Uwe Schindler > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > http://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Rowe [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 7:26 PM > > To: lucene dev > > Subject: [DISCUSS] The next Lucene/Solr release, aka 5.0 is the new > > 4.11 > > > > On LUCENE-5944, Robert and Uwe discussed moving trunk to 6.x and > > “creating branch_5x”, which I understood to mean: > > > > svn copy trunk branch_6x > > svn move trunk branch_5x > > > > Today, Robert did: > > > > svn copy branch_4x branch_5x > > > > and then Uwe did: > > > > svn remove branch_4x > > > > I don’t think this is the way to go. There is huge amount of > > deprecation removal that happened on trunk, which will have to be > > repeated on branch_5x prior to a release. > > > > How about we go with releasing what was trunk before today as 5.0? > > That will have the same backcompat result as Robert/Uwe’s approach. > > > > Steve > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For > > additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
