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/
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

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/
>
>

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/
>>
>>
>
>

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Mark Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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).

Right.  That big difference also has implications for the 3.x line too
though - possible backports of new features like field collapsing or
per-segment faceting that involve the flex API would involve a good
amount of re-writing (along with the introduction of new bugs).  I'd
put my money on 4.0-dev being actually *more* stable for these new
features.

-Yonik
http://lucenerevolution.org  Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8