Sure, it was a thought and I think I'm with you (and Robert) on that now. Let's just call it 5.0!
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Ryan Ernst <[email protected]> wrote: > 4.0 was a major change. The alpha/beta allowed a more lengthened period > of time for users to experiment with upgrading. But 5.0 doesn't have > anything crazy. Codecs are stable and easily upgrade when changes/bugfixes > are needed. > > Furthermore, the alpha/beta logic in Version.java is/was very hairy (and > just touching it caused the 4.10.1 release). I don't see the need. If > users don't want to upgrade until 5.1, or 5.2, or 5.10, it doesn't matter. > We should just stick with regular dot releases and avoid crazy alpha/beta. > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > >> my main concern with the alpha is the lucene index format logic. This >> gets fairly messy and doing this for 4.x actually caused backwards >> compatibility bugs. >> >> If we can avoid alpha/beta releases it would be really nice. >> >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Anshum Gupta <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > I'd like to suggest that we call the next release 5.0 alpha and follow >> it >> > with either 5.0 or 5.0 beta (if need be) on the lines of the 4x >> releases. >> > >> > As for the history behind calling it that, here's a post about the 4.0 >> alpha >> > release that should clarify things I'm thinking about. >> > >> > http://lucidworks.com/blog/4-0-alpha-whats-in-a-name/ >> > >> > Again, this would be a stable, production release. Like all other public >> > releases but would give us the freedom to change APIs that need to be >> > changed. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> > -- >> > Anshum Gupta >> > http://about.me/anshumgupta >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > -- Anshum Gupta http://about.me/anshumgupta
