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 change for core services. For example, I don't see us ever changing the "rows" parameter or the XML update format in a non-back-compat way. Companies can (and do) go to production on trunk versions of Solr after thorough testing in their scenario (as they should do with *any* new version of solr that isn't strictly bugfix). -Yonik http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8 On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 used to the terms, 4.x is the unstable branch, > though some freak out if you call that for fear you think its 'really > unstable'. In reality, it just means likely less stable than the stable > branch (3.x), as we target 3.x for stability and 4.x for stickier or non > back compat changes. > > Eventually 4.x will be stable and 5.x unstable, with possible > maintenance support for previous stable lines as well. > > - Mark > lucidimagination.com > > On 9/17/10 9:58 AM, Mark Allan wrote: >> 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 to service with something built on >> Solr in Jan 2011 and would like to avoid development phase software, but >> if needs must... >> >> Thanks >> Mark >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2010, at 12:10 pm, Markus Jelsma wrote: >> >>> Well, it's under heavy development but the 3.x branch is more likely >>> to become released than 1.5.x, which is highly unlikely to be ever >>> released. >>> >>> >>> On Thursday 09 September 2010 13:04:38 Mark Allan wrote: >>>> Thanks. Are you suggesting I use branch_3x and is that considered >>>> stable? >>>> Cheers >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> On 9 Sep 2010, at 10:47 am, Markus Jelsma wrote: >>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/ >> >> > >
