markrmiller commented on issue #13797: URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/13797#issuecomment-2408708392
Thank you, Adrien, for your thoughtful response and for sharing your expertise on this topic. Your insights are valuable, and I'd like to address a few points and seek some clarification. First, I want to emphasize that the two approaches we're discussing - relaxing the upgrade policy and implementing background reindexing - are not mutually exclusive. Both have merit and could potentially be implemented to serve different use cases and user needs. **Relaxed Upgrade Policy**: This approach aims to reduce friction for upgrades by allowing them across multiple major versions when safe to do so. **Background Reindexing**: This method, as you've outlined, provides a path for long-term index modernization and feature adoption. I'd like to clarify that our original proposal isn't about extending the backward compatibility window. Rather, it's about allowing index upgrades as long as backward compatibility hasn't been broken - essentially making the upgrade check only as strict as necessary. This doesn't change any promises about the backward compatibility window itself. Could you elaborate on your concerns about extending the backward compatibility window? While that's not our intention, understanding these concerns could be useful. Given that these approaches serve different purposes and timeframes, I believe there's value in considering both: The _relaxed upgrade policy_ could provide immediate benefits with relatively low development and operational costs. The _background reindexing solution_ offers long-term benefits for feature adoption and index modernization, albeit with higher development and operational costs. Implementing both could provide flexibility for users with different needs and resources. Users could benefit from easier upgrades in the short term while having a path to adopt new features when they're ready. **Questions** Could you share more about your concerns regarding the relaxed upgrade policy? Are there specific technical or operational issues you foresee? Do you see any conflicts or problems with implementing both approaches? Would you be open to a phased approach, where we implement the relaxed upgrade policy first and then work on tooling for background reindexing? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
