should we name the thing o.a.l.u.fst in trunk too?
Good idea... I'll do that w/ this issue.
if FST is going to go into 3.x i think we should do a check to ensure all classes are @experimental
OK will do... there were a few missing (I'll fix trunk too).
I think we should consider cutting Builder over to the new CharsRef?
I agree but I think we should do this separately? I'll open an issue...
we need to discuss things like autosuggest file formats, etc? At least so we are all on the same page wrt any backwards policy...
Yes... maybe the same policy as the index? So if you create auto-suggest FST in 3.x, 4.x's suggest module will be able to read it / use it?
The FST itself is already versioned (uses CodecUtil to read/write the header) so we should be all set to impl whatever policy we work out.