ChrisHegarty commented on issue #14623: URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/14623#issuecomment-2859167057
> I think increasing the back compat burden should be the last resort. The burden can easily hamstring the entire project: allowing a lucene version to write multiple index formats makes this much more complex and difficult to reason about. Generally, I agree. That is why I suggested retaining the format, likely deprecated, for just a single release. Though I do see your point and the risks that it could bring. > Can we try to look at alternatives that address the root cause of underlying concerns via test improvements or otherwise? I think it would be a better approach. Absolutely, it's awful that such bugs are creeping through the Lucene development and release process. I do think that we need do to better to catch these things before the Lucene release. That said, bugs will always find a way of escaping. With improved testing then hopefully less of them and less severe ones will escape. Ok, I'm somewhat happy to withdraw the proposal for Lucene to carry the backward compatibility burden. That is maybe a step too far to solve a problem that only we seem to be having (since we actually use the most recent release). I'm happy for the consumer Lucene to make the decision to carry the burden itself. What we're missing now is the ability to do so, which I'm happy to work on solving. -- 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
