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 15:04:45 GMT

On Mar 25, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Robert Muir wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Grant Ingersoll <> wrote:
>> 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:
>> /dev-tools/
>> /lucene/dev-tools
>> /solr/dev-tools
>> 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 would be against this. currently to fix eclipse i just copy the
> .classpath file to /dev-tools/eclipse/dot.classpath and commit. This
> makes it significantly harder.
> Additionally I don't see how this could possibly work: a "standalone"
> solr would use lucene jar files since it doesnt include the lucene
> source.
> Because of this, a "top-level" dev-tools eclipse configuration would
> not be the composition of lucene+solr, instead it would be a totally
> different thing.

Solr would just include the whole tree.  Lucene could then just deliver Lucene.

> So I don't think this is useful: dev-tools is for developers,

Right.  People who take the source are developers, no?  As it is now, we ship them a broken
build system.

> and
> developers are all using the big /trunk checkout, so we don't need
> dev-tools at a lower level, for no good reason.
> Honestly I could care less about making it easy for someone to
> configure lucene or solr by itself in their IDE. I did the eclipse
> work (for example) to make it easier for people to contribute to
> lucene/solr, I could care less about making it easier for people to
> configure their "own private copies" of lucene or solr easier, and I'm
> definitely not going to let it make it *harder* on us to support
> contributions (the top-level /dev-tools).

Yes, but isn't the way people start making contributions at first by taking the source from
a release and working on it?    Isn't that the point of the src release?  (Other than the
ASF requires it)

> This is becoming a slippery slope fast... Uwe's perspective is
> starting to become much more attractive.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Grant Ingersoll

Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:

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

View raw message