Mailing List Archive: Lucene: Java-Dev

[VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

gsingers at apache

Jul 26, 2007, 5:36 PM

Post #1 of 13 (1200 views)
Permalink

[VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release

I propose we take the following path for migrating Lucene Java to
JDK 1.5:
1. Put in any new deprecations we want, cleanups, etc.
2. Release 2.4 so all of Mike M's goodness is available to 1.4 users
within the next 2-4 weeks using our new release mechanism (i.e code
freeze, branch, documentation. I tentatively volunteer to be the RM,
but hope someone will be my wingman on it).
3. Announce that 2.9 will be the last version under JDK 1.4
4. Put in any other deprecations that we want and do as we did when
moving from 1.4.3 to 1.9 by laying out a migration plan, etc.
5. Release 2.9 as the last official release on JDK 1.4
6. Switch 3.0-dev to be on JDK 1.5, removing any deprecated code and
updating ANT to use 1.5 for source and target.
7. Start accepting JDK 1.5 patches on 3.0-dev

If possible, efforts should be made to identify people who are
willing to backport 3.x changes to JDK 1.4 on 2.9 and give them
branch commit rights, but this is not a strict requirement of this plan.

Thus:

+1 for JDK 1.5 as outlined in steps 1-7
0 if you don't care
-1 if you are against it

Since the weekend is coming up, how about we leave this vote open
until Monday?

You can see discussions of this here: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/
lists/lucene/java-dev/51421

Here is my +1.

Cheers,
Grant

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

mike.klaas at gmail

Jul 26, 2007, 5:51 PM

Post #2 of 13 (1162 views)
Permalink

Re: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release [In reply to]

On 26-Jul-07, at 5:36 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> I propose we take the following path for migrating Lucene Java to
> JDK 1.5:
> 1. Put in any new deprecations we want, cleanups, etc.
> 2. Release 2.4 so all of Mike M's goodness is available to 1.4
> users within the next 2-4 weeks using our new release mechanism
> (i.e code freeze, branch, documentation. I tentatively volunteer
> to be the RM, but hope someone will be my wingman on it).
> 3. Announce that 2.9 will be the last version under JDK 1.4
> 4. Put in any other deprecations that we want and do as we did when
> moving from 1.4.3 to 1.9 by laying out a migration plan, etc.
> 5. Release 2.9 as the last official release on JDK 1.4
> 6. Switch 3.0-dev to be on JDK 1.5, removing any deprecated code
> and updating ANT to use 1.5 for source and target.
> 7. Start accepting JDK 1.5 patches on 3.0-dev
>
> If possible, efforts should be made to identify people who are
> willing to backport 3.x changes to JDK 1.4 on 2.9 and give them
> branch commit rights, but this is not a strict requirement of this
> plan.
>
> Thus:
>
> +1 for JDK 1.5 as outlined in steps 1-7
> 0 if you don't care
> -1 if you are against it
>
> Since the weekend is coming up, how about we leave this vote open
> until Monday?
>
> You can see discussions of this here: http://www.gossamer-
> threads.com/lists/lucene/java-dev/51421
>
> Here is my +1.

not sure if Solr committers votes count or if it just the PMC, but +1

-Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

buschmic at gmail

Jul 26, 2007, 5:56 PM

Post #3 of 13 (1161 views)
Permalink

Re: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release [In reply to]

Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> 2. Release 2.4 so all of Mike M's goodness is available to 1.4 users
> within the next 2-4 weeks using our new release mechanism (i.e code

Hi Grant,

2-4 weeks seems quite soon considering that 2.2 is very new and that
there are a lot of open issues targeted for 2.3. For example, I would
like to get LUCENE-743 into the next release. And Mike is also working
on a couple of issues, like LUCENE-845, that, I think, should be
committed before the next release.

>
> Here is my +1.
>

My +1 for switching to JDK 1.5 with Lucene 3.0, however in a somewhat
relaxed timeframe. Releasing 2.3 in let's say 2 months seems more
realistic and reasonable to me.

Btw: I could also do the RM work again if you want me to, I'm in
practice now ;) (oh that reminds me that I should update the wiki
release page... will do)

- Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

gsingers at apache

Jul 26, 2007, 6:07 PM

Post #4 of 13 (1168 views)
Permalink

Re: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release [In reply to]

On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:56 PM, Michael Busch wrote:

> Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> 2. Release 2.4 so all of Mike M's goodness is available to 1.4 users
>> within the next 2-4 weeks using our new release mechanism (i.e code
>
>
> Hi Grant,
>
> 2-4 weeks seems quite soon considering that 2.2 is very new and that
> there are a lot of open issues targeted for 2.3. For example, I would
> like to get LUCENE-743 into the next release. And Mike is also working
> on a couple of issues, like LUCENE-845, that, I think, should be
> committed before the next release.
>

OK, that is fine with me, I guess I was just hyped up to get going.
Also, we did say we wanted to release more often, but you are right,
we did just do 2.3.

>>
>> Here is my +1.
>>
>
> My +1 for switching to JDK 1.5 with Lucene 3.0, however in a somewhat
> relaxed timeframe. Releasing 2.3 in let's say 2 months seems more
> realistic and reasonable to me.
>

So, +1 for ~2 mos. time frame.

> Btw: I could also do the RM work again if you want me to, I'm in
> practice now ;) (oh that reminds me that I should update the wiki
> release page... will do)

Cool, I would like to have try my hand at it at least once just so we
have another person on it, but will gladly work with you on it.

-Grant

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

karl.wettin at gmail

Jul 27, 2007, 1:55 AM

Post #5 of 13 (1153 views)
Permalink

Re: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release [In reply to]

27 jul 2007 kl. 02.36 skrev Grant Ingersoll:

> I propose we take the following path for migrating Lucene Java to
> JDK 1.5:

+1

Curiosa, the only requirement I've had for 1.4 lately is when I've
been fooling around running Lucene on my router. A small embedded
Linux (OpenWRT) and I've successfully used both SableVM and JamVM via
the GCJ classpath. Completely useless thing to do, really slow too,
but fun.

--
karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

lucene at mikemccandless

Jul 27, 2007, 2:12 AM

Post #6 of 13 (1143 views)
Permalink

Re: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release [In reply to]

+1 on moving to JDK 1.5

I'm also psyched for more frequent releases! But in this case I would
like to get both the Analyzer optimizations (re-using tokens) and
LUCENE-845 in before 2.3 if I can. 2 months should be a good time
frame for that.

Mike

"Grant Ingersoll" <gsingers [at] apache> wrote:
>
> On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:56 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
>
> > Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> >> 2. Release 2.4 so all of Mike M's goodness is available to 1.4 users
> >> within the next 2-4 weeks using our new release mechanism (i.e code
> >
> >
> > Hi Grant,
> >
> > 2-4 weeks seems quite soon considering that 2.2 is very new and that
> > there are a lot of open issues targeted for 2.3. For example, I would
> > like to get LUCENE-743 into the next release. And Mike is also working
> > on a couple of issues, like LUCENE-845, that, I think, should be
> > committed before the next release.
> >
>
> OK, that is fine with me, I guess I was just hyped up to get going.
> Also, we did say we wanted to release more often, but you are right,
> we did just do 2.3.
>
> >>
> >> Here is my +1.
> >>
> >
> > My +1 for switching to JDK 1.5 with Lucene 3.0, however in a somewhat
> > relaxed timeframe. Releasing 2.3 in let's say 2 months seems more
> > realistic and reasonable to me.
> >
>
> So, +1 for ~2 mos. time frame.
>
> > Btw: I could also do the RM work again if you want me to, I'm in
> > practice now ;) (oh that reminds me that I should update the wiki
> > release page... will do)
>
> Cool, I would like to have try my hand at it at least once just so we
> have another person on it, but will gladly work with you on it.
>
> -Grant
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

otis_gospodnetic at yahoo

Jul 27, 2007, 7:46 AM

Post #7 of 13 (1151 views)
Permalink

Re: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release [In reply to]

+1, and 2 months for 2.4 sounds good (side note: do a Solr release right after that?)

Otis

----- Original Message ----
From: Grant Ingersoll <gsingers [at] apache>
To: java-dev [at] lucene
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:36:39 AM
Subject: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release

I propose we take the following path for migrating Lucene Java to
JDK 1.5:
1. Put in any new deprecations we want, cleanups, etc.
2. Release 2.4 so all of Mike M's goodness is available to 1.4 users
within the next 2-4 weeks using our new release mechanism (i.e code
freeze, branch, documentation. I tentatively volunteer to be the RM,
but hope someone will be my wingman on it).
3. Announce that 2.9 will be the last version under JDK 1.4
4. Put in any other deprecations that we want and do as we did when
moving from 1.4.3 to 1.9 by laying out a migration plan, etc.
5. Release 2.9 as the last official release on JDK 1.4
6. Switch 3.0-dev to be on JDK 1.5, removing any deprecated code and
updating ANT to use 1.5 for source and target.
7. Start accepting JDK 1.5 patches on 3.0-dev

If possible, efforts should be made to identify people who are
willing to backport 3.x changes to JDK 1.4 on 2.9 and give them
branch commit rights, but this is not a strict requirement of this plan.

Thus:

+1 for JDK 1.5 as outlined in steps 1-7
0 if you don't care
-1 if you are against it

Since the weekend is coming up, how about we leave this vote open
until Monday?

You can see discussions of this here: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/
lists/lucene/java-dev/51421

Here is my +1.

Cheers,
Grant

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

ryantxu at gmail

Jul 27, 2007, 10:47 AM

Post #8 of 13 (1150 views)
Permalink

Re: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release [In reply to]

> >
> > Here is my +1.
>
> not sure if Solr committers votes count or if it just the PMC, but +1
>
> -Mike
>

Likewise, my +1

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--Migrate-Lucene-to-JDK-1.5-for-3.0-release-tf4154899.html#a11833799
Sent from the Lucene - Java Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

dmsmith555 at gmail

Jul 30, 2007, 5:18 AM

Post #9 of 13 (1137 views)
Permalink

Re: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release [In reply to]

+1 from me, too. Not because I have a vote or that I am for going to
1.5, but because it is inevitable and this is a well thought out,
fine plan. (excepting the aggressive timeline that has been hashed
out already in this thread)

I'd like to point out that there is a consequence of this plan and
how Lucene has done things in the past.

At 1.9 it was fully compatible with 1.4.3, with deprecations. 2.0
mostly had deprecations removed and a few bug fixes. Then the 2.x
series has been backwardly compatible but not with 1.x (except being
able to read prior indexes, perhaps a few other things.).

If we continue that same pattern, then there will be no 1.5 features
in 2.9. (Otherwise it won't compile under 1.4). Thus, 3.0 will have a
1.4.2 compatible interface. And except for new classes, new methods
and compile equivalent features (such as Enums), 1.5 features won't
appear in the 3.x series API.

I think it is very important to preserve the Lucene API where
possible and reasonable, not changing it without gain. Given that
this has been the practice, I don't think it is an issue.

-- DM Smith

On Jul 26, 2007, at 8:36 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> I propose we take the following path for migrating Lucene Java to
> JDK 1.5:
> 1. Put in any new deprecations we want, cleanups, etc.
> 2. Release 2.4 so all of Mike M's goodness is available to 1.4
> users within the next 2-4 weeks using our new release mechanism
> (i.e code freeze, branch, documentation. I tentatively volunteer
> to be the RM, but hope someone will be my wingman on it).
> 3. Announce that 2.9 will be the last version under JDK 1.4
> 4. Put in any other deprecations that we want and do as we did when
> moving from 1.4.3 to 1.9 by laying out a migration plan, etc.
> 5. Release 2.9 as the last official release on JDK 1.4
> 6. Switch 3.0-dev to be on JDK 1.5, removing any deprecated code
> and updating ANT to use 1.5 for source and target.
> 7. Start accepting JDK 1.5 patches on 3.0-dev
>
> If possible, efforts should be made to identify people who are
> willing to backport 3.x changes to JDK 1.4 on 2.9 and give them
> branch commit rights, but this is not a strict requirement of this
> plan.
>
> Thus:
>
> +1 for JDK 1.5 as outlined in steps 1-7
> 0 if you don't care
> -1 if you are against it
>
> Since the weekend is coming up, how about we leave this vote open
> until Monday?
>
> You can see discussions of this here: http://www.gossamer-
> threads.com/lists/lucene/java-dev/51421
>
> Here is my +1.
>
> Cheers,
> Grant
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

gsingers at apache

Jul 30, 2007, 9:48 AM

Post #10 of 13 (1137 views)
Permalink

Re: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release [In reply to]

On Jul 30, 2007, at 8:18 AM, DM Smith wrote:

> +1 from me, too. Not because I have a vote or that I am for going
> to 1.5, but because it is inevitable and this is a well thought
> out, fine plan. (excepting the aggressive timeline that has been
> hashed out already in this thread)
>
> I'd like to point out that there is a consequence of this plan and
> how Lucene has done things in the past.
>
> At 1.9 it was fully compatible with 1.4.3, with deprecations. 2.0
> mostly had deprecations removed and a few bug fixes. Then the 2.x
> series has been backwardly compatible but not with 1.x (except
> being able to read prior indexes, perhaps a few other things.).
>
> If we continue that same pattern, then there will be no 1.5
> features in 2.9. (Otherwise it won't compile under 1.4). Thus, 3.0
> will have a 1.4.2 compatible interface. And except for new classes,
> new methods and compile equivalent features (such as Enums), 1.5
> features won't appear in the 3.x series API.
>

Yes, this is a slight variation from the 1.9 -> 2.0 migration. I
think the plan is to switch to 1.5 for compilation for 3.0-dev and
then we will be immediately open for accepting 1.5 patches. In fact,
if someone submitted a patch that converted all collections to
generics, I would be in favor of accepting it with all the usual
caveats. I don't see any other way around, as I don't think the
intent is to say that 3.x contains no 1.5 features other than it
compiles using JDK 1.5.

> I think it is very important to preserve the Lucene API where
> possible and reasonable, not changing it without gain. Given that
> this has been the practice, I don't think it is an issue.
>

I agree. I think method names, etc. will stay the same, but we will
start adding Generics and Enums where appropriate and new code can be
all 1.5. For instance, though, the Field declaration parameters are
a prime place for Enums. So, the move would be to add in the new
Enums and deprecate the old Field.Index and Field.Store static ints.
Thus, they would not go away until 4.x (wow, that is weird to say)

Does that seem reasonable?

-Grant

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

grant.ingersoll at gmail

Aug 2, 2007, 5:28 AM

Post #11 of 13 (1115 views)
Permalink

Re: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release [In reply to]

OK, I think all the binding votes are for adopting JDK 1.5 with the
following plan:
1. Put in any new deprecations we want, cleanups, etc.
2. Release 2.4 so all of Mike M's goodness is available to 1.4 users
within the next 2 months or so (no hard date) using our new release
mechanism (i.e code freeze, branch, documentation. I tentatively
volunteer to be the RM, but hope someone will be my wingman on it).
3. Announce that 2.9 will be the last version under JDK 1.4
4. Put in any other deprecations that we want and do as we did when
moving from 1.4.3 to 1.9 by laying out a migration plan, etc.
5. Release 2.9 as the last official release on JDK 1.4
6. Switch 3.0-dev to be on JDK 1.5, removing any deprecated code and
updating ANT to use 1.5 for source and target.
7. Start accepting JDK 1.5 patches on 3.0-dev

I am going to put this up on the Wiki as well. We can open JIRA
issues as appropriate. I would think it is reasonable to assume we
will be on 1.5 by the end of the year, right, since 2.9 will be a
housekeeping release, more or less?

Cheers,
Grant

On Jul 30, 2007, at 12:48 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

>
> On Jul 30, 2007, at 8:18 AM, DM Smith wrote:
>
>> +1 from me, too. Not because I have a vote or that I am for going
>> to 1.5, but because it is inevitable and this is a well thought
>> out, fine plan. (excepting the aggressive timeline that has been
>> hashed out already in this thread)
>>
>> I'd like to point out that there is a consequence of this plan and
>> how Lucene has done things in the past.
>>
>> At 1.9 it was fully compatible with 1.4.3, with deprecations. 2.0
>> mostly had deprecations removed and a few bug fixes. Then the 2.x
>> series has been backwardly compatible but not with 1.x (except
>> being able to read prior indexes, perhaps a few other things.).
>>
>> If we continue that same pattern, then there will be no 1.5
>> features in 2.9. (Otherwise it won't compile under 1.4). Thus, 3.0
>> will have a 1.4.2 compatible interface. And except for new
>> classes, new methods and compile equivalent features (such as
>> Enums), 1.5 features won't appear in the 3.x series API.
>>
>
> Yes, this is a slight variation from the 1.9 -> 2.0 migration. I
> think the plan is to switch to 1.5 for compilation for 3.0-dev and
> then we will be immediately open for accepting 1.5 patches. In
> fact, if someone submitted a patch that converted all collections
> to generics, I would be in favor of accepting it with all the usual
> caveats. I don't see any other way around, as I don't think the
> intent is to say that 3.x contains no 1.5 features other than it
> compiles using JDK 1.5.
>
>
>> I think it is very important to preserve the Lucene API where
>> possible and reasonable, not changing it without gain. Given that
>> this has been the practice, I don't think it is an issue.
>>
>
> I agree. I think method names, etc. will stay the same, but we
> will start adding Generics and Enums where appropriate and new code
> can be all 1.5. For instance, though, the Field declaration
> parameters are a prime place for Enums. So, the move would be to
> add in the new Enums and deprecate the old Field.Index and
> Field.Store static ints. Thus, they would not go away until 4.x
> (wow, that is weird to say)
>
> Does that seem reasonable?
>
> -Grant
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
>

------------------------------------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.grantingersoll.com/
http://lucene.grantingersoll.com
http://www.paperoftheweek.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

steven_parkes at esseff

Aug 2, 2007, 8:02 AM

Post #12 of 13 (1116 views)
Permalink

RE: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release [In reply to]

Hmmmm ... just a nit (or did I miss something?) in (2), do you mean 2.3?

-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:grant.ingersoll [at] gmail]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 5:29 AM
To: java-dev [at] lucene
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release

OK, I think all the binding votes are for adopting JDK 1.5 with the
following plan:
1. Put in any new deprecations we want, cleanups, etc.
2. Release 2.4 so all of Mike M's goodness is available to 1.4 users
within the next 2 months or so (no hard date) using our new release
mechanism (i.e code freeze, branch, documentation. I tentatively
volunteer to be the RM, but hope someone will be my wingman on it).
3. Announce that 2.9 will be the last version under JDK 1.4
4. Put in any other deprecations that we want and do as we did when
moving from 1.4.3 to 1.9 by laying out a migration plan, etc.
5. Release 2.9 as the last official release on JDK 1.4
6. Switch 3.0-dev to be on JDK 1.5, removing any deprecated code and
updating ANT to use 1.5 for source and target.
7. Start accepting JDK 1.5 patches on 3.0-dev

I am going to put this up on the Wiki as well. We can open JIRA
issues as appropriate. I would think it is reasonable to assume we
will be on 1.5 by the end of the year, right, since 2.9 will be a
housekeeping release, more or less?

Cheers,
Grant

On Jul 30, 2007, at 12:48 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

>
> On Jul 30, 2007, at 8:18 AM, DM Smith wrote:
>
>> +1 from me, too. Not because I have a vote or that I am for going
>> to 1.5, but because it is inevitable and this is a well thought
>> out, fine plan. (excepting the aggressive timeline that has been
>> hashed out already in this thread)
>>
>> I'd like to point out that there is a consequence of this plan and
>> how Lucene has done things in the past.
>>
>> At 1.9 it was fully compatible with 1.4.3, with deprecations. 2.0
>> mostly had deprecations removed and a few bug fixes. Then the 2.x
>> series has been backwardly compatible but not with 1.x (except
>> being able to read prior indexes, perhaps a few other things.).
>>
>> If we continue that same pattern, then there will be no 1.5
>> features in 2.9. (Otherwise it won't compile under 1.4). Thus, 3.0
>> will have a 1.4.2 compatible interface. And except for new
>> classes, new methods and compile equivalent features (such as
>> Enums), 1.5 features won't appear in the 3.x series API.
>>
>
> Yes, this is a slight variation from the 1.9 -> 2.0 migration. I
> think the plan is to switch to 1.5 for compilation for 3.0-dev and
> then we will be immediately open for accepting 1.5 patches. In
> fact, if someone submitted a patch that converted all collections
> to generics, I would be in favor of accepting it with all the usual
> caveats. I don't see any other way around, as I don't think the
> intent is to say that 3.x contains no 1.5 features other than it
> compiles using JDK 1.5.
>
>
>> I think it is very important to preserve the Lucene API where
>> possible and reasonable, not changing it without gain. Given that
>> this has been the practice, I don't think it is an issue.
>>
>
> I agree. I think method names, etc. will stay the same, but we
> will start adding Generics and Enums where appropriate and new code
> can be all 1.5. For instance, though, the Field declaration
> parameters are a prime place for Enums. So, the move would be to
> add in the new Enums and deprecate the old Field.Index and
> Field.Store static ints. Thus, they would not go away until 4.x
> (wow, that is weird to say)
>
> Does that seem reasonable?
>
> -Grant
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
>

------------------------------------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.grantingersoll.com/
http://lucene.grantingersoll.com
http://www.paperoftheweek.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

grant.ingersoll at gmail

Aug 2, 2007, 9:01 AM

Post #13 of 13 (1113 views)
Permalink

Re: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release [In reply to]

yes. 2.3 then on to 2.9

On Aug 2, 2007, at 11:02 AM, Steven Parkes wrote:

> Hmmmm ... just a nit (or did I miss something?) in (2), do you mean
> 2.3?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:grant.ingersoll [at] gmail]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 5:29 AM
> To: java-dev [at] lucene
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Migrate Lucene to JDK 1.5 for 3.0 release
>
> OK, I think all the binding votes are for adopting JDK 1.5 with the
> following plan:
> 1. Put in any new deprecations we want, cleanups, etc.
> 2. Release 2.4 so all of Mike M's goodness is available to 1.4 users
> within the next 2 months or so (no hard date) using our new release
> mechanism (i.e code freeze, branch, documentation. I tentatively
> volunteer to be the RM, but hope someone will be my wingman on it).
> 3. Announce that 2.9 will be the last version under JDK 1.4
> 4. Put in any other deprecations that we want and do as we did when
> moving from 1.4.3 to 1.9 by laying out a migration plan, etc.
> 5. Release 2.9 as the last official release on JDK 1.4
> 6. Switch 3.0-dev to be on JDK 1.5, removing any deprecated code and
> updating ANT to use 1.5 for source and target.
> 7. Start accepting JDK 1.5 patches on 3.0-dev
>
>
> I am going to put this up on the Wiki as well. We can open JIRA
> issues as appropriate. I would think it is reasonable to assume we
> will be on 1.5 by the end of the year, right, since 2.9 will be a
> housekeeping release, more or less?
>
> Cheers,
> Grant
>
> On Jul 30, 2007, at 12:48 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2007, at 8:18 AM, DM Smith wrote:
>>
>>> +1 from me, too. Not because I have a vote or that I am for going
>>> to 1.5, but because it is inevitable and this is a well thought
>>> out, fine plan. (excepting the aggressive timeline that has been
>>> hashed out already in this thread)
>>>
>>> I'd like to point out that there is a consequence of this plan and
>>> how Lucene has done things in the past.
>>>
>>> At 1.9 it was fully compatible with 1.4.3, with deprecations. 2.0
>>> mostly had deprecations removed and a few bug fixes. Then the 2.x
>>> series has been backwardly compatible but not with 1.x (except
>>> being able to read prior indexes, perhaps a few other things.).
>>>
>>> If we continue that same pattern, then there will be no 1.5
>>> features in 2.9. (Otherwise it won't compile under 1.4). Thus, 3.0
>>> will have a 1.4.2 compatible interface. And except for new
>>> classes, new methods and compile equivalent features (such as
>>> Enums), 1.5 features won't appear in the 3.x series API.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, this is a slight variation from the 1.9 -> 2.0 migration. I
>> think the plan is to switch to 1.5 for compilation for 3.0-dev and
>> then we will be immediately open for accepting 1.5 patches. In
>> fact, if someone submitted a patch that converted all collections
>> to generics, I would be in favor of accepting it with all the usual
>> caveats. I don't see any other way around, as I don't think the
>> intent is to say that 3.x contains no 1.5 features other than it
>> compiles using JDK 1.5.
>>
>>
>>> I think it is very important to preserve the Lucene API where
>>> possible and reasonable, not changing it without gain. Given that
>>> this has been the practice, I don't think it is an issue.
>>>
>>
>> I agree. I think method names, etc. will stay the same, but we
>> will start adding Generics and Enums where appropriate and new code
>> can be all 1.5. For instance, though, the Field declaration
>> parameters are a prime place for Enums. So, the move would be to
>> add in the new Enums and deprecate the old Field.Index and
>> Field.Store static ints. Thus, they would not go away until 4.x
>> (wow, that is weird to say)
>>
>> Does that seem reasonable?
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.grantingersoll.com/
> http://lucene.grantingersoll.com
> http://www.paperoftheweek.com/
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene
>

------------------------------------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.grantingersoll.com/
http://lucene.grantingersoll.com
http://www.paperoftheweek.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe [at] lucene
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help [at] lucene

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads