The devs try and keep both the 3 and 4 (trunk) branches stable in the terms you are talking about at all times. But bear in mind that more radical changes will tend to hit trunk, probably making it by definition less stable than 3. But it all depends - you might find a worse bug on the 3 branch!
A lot of the major changes on both branches have been fairly well tested up to this point IMO. I really think both are viable options if you properly test your deployment ahead of time. One large point though - when you jump on trunk as opposed to 3, you are more likely to be bitten by an index format change that makes upgrading an index a pain without a reindex. I think this risk is much greater on trunk - though when a lucene codec covers all index files, the whole problem should be heavily mitigated at the least. It's usually best to reindex anyway, but so painful for some, I guess there is sometimes really no choice. - Mark On 10/14/10 1:22 PM, Mike Squire wrote: > Hi, > > I've successfully downloaded and deployed 1.4.1, which is fine except it > doesn't support the spatial search stuff. I tried installing LocalSolr but > came to a bit of an impasse when it appeared to index stuff but didn't > return any results (and then I saw the last commit to the LocalSolr > repository was Dec last year so decided that was probably out-of-date > anyway). > > So, if I want the spatial search support it appears there are 2 candidates. > Either the 1.5 or the 3.1 branch and my question is, which one is best for > me to use? I guess the answer to this question is driven by how up-to-date > (with respect the spatial search stuff) and stable 1.5 is (I notice the last > commit is a little over 6 months ago) and how close to stable the 3.1 branch > is. > > This is ultimately for a production system so I'm not too keen on "winging" > it with an unstable version, but I'd really like to take advantage of the > spatial search stuff if possible. > > As an ancillary question, does anyone know how stable the 3.1 branch is and > how close the dev team feel they are to a release? I guess "it's done when > it's done" but a general idea would be quite helpful. > > Thanks in advance. > > Mike. >
