lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com>
Subject Re: lucene and solr trunk
Date Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:57:56 GMT
Duh -- I meant to reply to Hoss' proposal, below:

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Michael McCandless
<lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> I like this proposal!
>
> I agree we should not preclude the future (modules), let's just not
> hold up dev today until we solve it.
>
> I agree your side by side solution would allow for us to later factor
> up modules (eg analyzers).
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Michael McCandless
> <lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
>> But it's actually the reverse?  Solr depends on Lucene but not vice/versa.
>>
>> (If instead I proposed making Solr a subdir of Lucene then I'd agree....)
>>
>> So... if you checkout only lucene, you can cd there and do all you do
>> today with Lucene ("ant test", "ant dist", "svn diff", etc.).
>>
>> If you checkout solr, you can cd there and "ant test" will run all of
>> Lucene's and all of Solr's tests.  "svn diff" will include any changes
>> to lucene and to solr.
>>
>> Ie this achieves want we want -- Solr to depend on Lucene but not vice
>> versa, right?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I have to agree w/ Jake that putting Lucene under Solr gives the impression
>>> as if suddenly Lucene became dependent on it ... and for really no good
>>> reasons. Are we making that decision to simplify the build of Solr? What are
>>> the problems Solr faces today w.r.t. its build and using a Lucene release or
>>> trunk revision?
>>>
>>> I didn't follow the Lucene/Solr merge on general@, because I didn't even
>>> know such a beast exists. So I guess I'm missing something ...
>>>
>>> Shai
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Jake Mannix <jake.mannix@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Yonik Seeley <yonik@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Chiming in just a bit here - isn't there any concern that independent
>>>>> > of
>>>>> > whether or not people "can"
>>>>> > build lucene without checking out solr, the mere fact that Lucene
will
>>>>> > be
>>>>> > effectively a "subdirectory"
>>>>> > of solr...  is there no concern that there will then be a perception
>>>>> > that Lucene is a subproject of
>>>>> > Solr, instead of vice-versa?
>>>>>
>>>>> Who would have this perception?
>>>>> Casual users will be using downloads.
>>>>
>>>> Developers and dev managers at companies doing build vs. buy decisions
>>>> regarding
>>>> whether they will do one of the following:
>>>> 1) pay big bucks to get FAST or whatever
>>>> 2) use Solr (free/cheap!)
>>>> 3) pay [variable] bucks to build their own with Lucene
>>>> 4) pay [variable but high] to build their own from scratch
>>>> I'm not concerned with casual downloaders.  I'm talking about the
>>>> companies and people who
>>>> may or may not be interested in making multi-million dollar decisions
>>>> regarding using or
>>>> not using Lucene or Solr.
>>>>   -jake
>>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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