lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 3.1
Date Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:45:45 GMT

On Mar 25, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Robert Muir wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Mark Miller <> wrote:
>> Well, actually I think we should just make it completely unsupported. These are our
dev tools - don't count on them for crap. No reason to exclude them from the src IMO.
> For the solr release, I think I could be ok with that (my concerns are
> more that later someone will say, how did this eclipse stuff etc slip
> into the release?). I know some people hesitated to add support for
> IDEs for this reason, I was for it as I want to make contributions
> easier, but I don't want us to look at it as making releasing harder.


> For the lucene release, I'm definitely against it: nothing in there
> will work at all because the lucene release doesn't include the solr
> bits. I know its been mentioned in this thread that maybe we should
> look at a single source artifact for everything, I don't think we
> should do this either.

I do think we need standalone artifacts.  So, I suppose if we do that, then we can't just
svn export, b/c we would need to separate dev tools per project.  But, then again, why can't
we have:

The top level just creates IDE that includes the lower ones, but the lower ones can each be
standalone. (This goes for the Maven stuff too).

I realize, of course, this is work, so my suggestion would be we do 3.1 w/ it included as
is and then fix in the next release.

> I think its important that lucene stays a standalone search engine
> library from the artifact point of view, even if our development is in
> sync with solr.

I agree.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message