On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> I agree it's mainly API wise, but there are other issues - largely due
> to Lucene right now - consider the bugs that have been dug up this year
> on the 4.x line because flex has been such a large rewrite deep in
> Lucene. We wouldn't do flex
I agree it's mainly API wise, but there are other issues - largely due
to Lucene right now - consider the bugs that have been dug up this year
on the 4.x line because flex has been such a large rewrite deep in
Lucene. We wouldn't do flex on the 3.x stable line and it's taken a
while for everything
I think we aim for a "stable" trunk (4.0-dev) too, as we always have
(in the functional sense... i.e. operate correctly, don't crash, etc).
The stability is more a reference to API stability - the Java APIs are
much more likely to change on trunk. Solr's *external* APIs are much
less likely to ch
The 3.x line should be pretty stable. Hopefully we will do a release
soon. A conversation was again started about more frequent releases
recently, and hopefully that will lead to a 3.x release near term.
In any case, 3.x is the stable branch - 4.x is where the more crazy
stuff happens. If you are
OK, 1.5 won't be released, so we'll avoid that. I've now got my code
additions compiling against a version of 3.x so we'll stick with that
rather than solr_trunk for the time being.
Does anyone have any sense of when 3.x might be considered stable
enough for a release? We're hoping to go
