Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Release plan for 2.0 version? Current Maven (RC4) artifact's stableness? #24

Closed
gilnoh opened this issue May 29, 2017 · 2 comments
Closed

Comments

@gilnoh
Copy link
Contributor

gilnoh commented May 29, 2017

(I am sorry that I am writing a question to the issue tracker --- I couldn't find the user board or user mailing list. Feel free to delete this issue and forward me to proper place for asking release related question.)

This is a wonderful library that fills our need. I've been testing SolrS to replace SolrJ synchronous queries on our backend servers, and it seems to work well.

Here's my questions.

  • The documentation says "use RC3", but RC3 has some limitations like missing methods (e.g. deletions, etc), and missing capabilities (e.g. query method as POST), compared to the source code of master branch.
  • On Maven central, there is RC4 artifact, which seems to be in line with current master branch. I guess I should use RC4.
  • We are about to use RC4 on a productive environment --- will there be any pitfall I should be careful, or to worry about? :-)

Thanks again for this great library.

Gil
OMQ GmbH

@magro
Copy link
Member

magro commented May 29, 2017

Hi @gilnoh, no worries, great issue! If you're looking for a place to ask questions you can use gitter: https://gitter.im/inoio/solrs

That the readme mentions RC3 is outdated as you noticed.

We're running the RCs in production for several months now, so I'd call it stable.

A thing that I wanted to add before releasing 2.0 was #15, because this will break binary compatibility. Unfortunately until now I didn't find the time to do this (also because it's only an api issue, nothing functional/critical).
Because nobody so far asked for it we could also leave it as it is and make the release.

But, as already said, you can also already go with the current RC4.

@gilnoh
Copy link
Contributor Author

gilnoh commented May 30, 2017

Thanks for the reply. :-)

@gilnoh gilnoh closed this as completed May 30, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants