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 to shake out in 4.x (and it's prob still swaying).
- Mark On 9/17/10 10:27 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > 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/ >>> >>> >> >>
