lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: contrib and lucene 3.0
Date Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:56:20 GMT
Negative shcmegative :)

Your right - this needs to be handled better. If we are going to add new
deprecations before all of the old deprecations are removed, there needs
to be help in the javadocs.

Of course its nothing against those that did it - they likely didn't see
this issue - I don't think any of us ever care about blame or fault.
Just solutions ;) And this needs one.

Robert Muir wrote:
> I don't want to come across as negative here... i'm not trying to
> single anyone out,
> just a bit confused as to why my issue was singled out when theres
> already been both new features and new deprecations added to 3.0,
> and the issue in question doesnt even have any deprecations. then
> again i don't really care if its in 3.0 or 3.1, but its just wierd.
>
> a search on 'deprecated' in contrib is pretty enlightening.
>
> here's an example from spatial: DistanceApproximation entire class
> deprecated!
>
>  * @deprecated This has been replaced with more accurate
>  * math in {@link LLRect}.
>
> this deprecation traces back to LUCENE-1781, which is marked as Fix
> Version 2.9
> makes me want to delete it, except if you check contrib/CHANGES, you
> see it wasn't actually applied until 3.0
> so it shouldnt be deleted yet.
>
> again, not trying to be negative, +1 to both the contributor(s) and
> committers that fixed this bug in spatial, as I sure don't understand it.
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com
> <mailto:markrmiller@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     What deprecations were already added?
>
>     Robert Muir wrote:
>     > well, not to complain, but I will mention on this topic.
>     >
>     > If something is marked deprecated, its 10x easier if in the javadocs
>     > there is some version information applied.
>     >
>     > In the wild west that is contrib, its currently a bit difficult
>     for me
>     > to clear out the deprecations from 2.9, because there are new
>     > deprecations added in 3.0.
>     > it takes svn annotate + jira + CHANGES to figure out exactly what
>     > should be cleared out (and sometimes these all seem to disagree, Fix
>     > Version != Changes, etc etc)
>     >
>     > This is why i only did part of LUCENE-2022
>     >
>     > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Mark Miller
>     <markrmiller@gmail.com <mailto:markrmiller@gmail.com>
>     > <mailto:markrmiller@gmail.com <mailto:markrmiller@gmail.com>>>
>     wrote:
>     >
>     >     I have no problem with new features either - but I would
>     vote that
>     >     if it
>     >     requires new deprecations, it should wait.
>     >
>     >     I think its nice to have a clean release first. And I also
>     don't think
>     >     any of this features should hold up the 3.0 release. Lets
>     get it out -
>     >     then focus on new features.
>     >
>     >     Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>     >     > How do you handle deprecations of old stuff for the new
>     contribution
>     >     > (assuming it needs it)?  Seems weird to have a major
>     release that
>     >     > immediately has deprecations.  At the same time, it seems
>     weird to
>     >     > have a major release that doesn't contain new features.  If
>     >     anything,
>     >     > it is our best opportunity to put in new stuff
>     >     >
>     >     > Traditionally, the only difference between .9 and .0 has been
>     >     removal
>     >     > of deprecations.  This time around we are saying also JDK 1.5.
>     >     >
>     >     > Not saying we can't do it, just wondering.
>     >     >
>     >     > On Oct 30, 2009, at 3:31 PM, DM Smith wrote:
>     >     >
>     >     >> I don't see any reason to freeze new contributions from any
>     >     release.
>     >     >>
>     >     >> On 10/30/2009 03:19 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
>     >     >>> thanks Michael.
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> does anyone else have any opinion on this issue?
>     >     >>> fyi we already have several new features committed to
>     3.0 contrib
>     >     >>> already (see contrib/CHANGES),
>     >     >>> but I don't too much care either way, if I should not be
>     >     adding this
>     >     >>> feature to 3.0, I'd like to set the version in jira to 3.1
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Michael McCandless
>     >     >>> <lucene@mikemccandless.com
>     <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com>
>     <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com>>
>     >     <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com
>     <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com>
>     >     <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com
>     <mailto:lucene@mikemccandless.com>>>> wrote:
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>     I think we should allow new features into contrib
>     for 3.0.
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>     I don't even like holding new features from core for
>     3.0.
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>     In general I don't think it's healthy when trunk is
>     locked
>     >     down....
>     >     >>>     Trunk should be like a locomotive that's plowing
>     ahead at
>     >     all times.
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>     Mike
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>     On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Muir
>     >     <rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
>     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>>
>     >     >>>     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
>     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
>     >     >>>     > Hi,
>     >     >>>     >
>     >     >>>     > What is the consensus on new features for contrib
>     for Lucene
>     >     >>>     3.0? I know
>     >     >>>     > that for core, its mostly a java 5 upgrade and
>     deprecation
>     >     >>>     removal.
>     >     >>>     >
>     >     >>>     > I want to make sure LUCENE-1606 is set to the
>     right version,
>     >     >>>     but I figured
>     >     >>>     > its really not just about that specific issue, I would
>     >     like to
>     >     >>>     know the
>     >     >>>     > plans in general.
>     >     >>>     >
>     >     >>>     > Thanks,
>     >     >>>     > Robert
>     >     >>>     >
>     >     >>>     > --
>     >     >>>     > Robert Muir
>     >     >>>     > rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
>     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>>
>     >     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
>     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>>>
>     >     >>>     >
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>
>     >    
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >     >>>     To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>     >     java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>
>     >     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>>
>     >     >>>     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>
>     >     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>>>
>     >     >>>     For additional commands, e-mail:
>     >     java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org>
>     >     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org>>
>     >     >>>     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org>
>     >     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org>>>
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> --
>     >     >>> Robert Muir
>     >     >>> rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
>     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>>
>     >     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
>     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>>>
>     >     >>
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     --
>     >     - Mark
>     >
>     >     http://www.lucidimagination.com
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >    
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >     To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>     java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>
>     >     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>>
>     >     For additional commands, e-mail:
>     java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org>
>     >     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org>>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     > Robert Muir
>     > rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
>     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>>
>
>
>     --
>     - Mark
>
>     http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>
>     For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>


-- 
- Mark

http://www.lucidimagination.com




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message