lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Willnauer <simon.willna...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Lucene/Solr JIRA
Date Thu, 19 May 2011 07:48:59 GMT
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Chris Hostetter
<hossman_lucene@fucit.org> wrote:
>
> : just a few words. I disagree here with you hoss IMO the suggestion to
> : merge JIRA would help to move us closer together and help close the
> : gap between Solr and Lucene. I think we need to start identifying us
> : with what we work on. It feels like we don't do that today and we
> : should work hard to stop that and make hard breaks that might hurt but
>
> I just don't see how you think that would help anything ... we still need
> to distinguish Jira issues to identify where in the "stack" they affect.
>
> If there is a "divide" among the developers because of the niches where
> they tend to work, will that divide magicly go away because we partition
> all issues using the "component" feature of instead of by the Jira
> "project" feature?
>
> I don't really see how that makes any sense.
>
> Even if we all thought it did, and even if the cost/effort of
> migrating/converting were totally free, the user bases (who interact with
> the Solr APIs vs directly using the Lucene-Core/Module APIs) are so
> distinct that I genuinely think sticking with distinct Jira "Projects"
> makes more sense for our users.
>
> : JIRA. I'd go even further and nuke the name entirely and call
> : everything lucene - I know not many folks like the idea and it might
> : take a while to bake in but I think for us (PMC / Committers) and the
>
> "Everything" already is called Lucene ... the Project is "Apache Lucene"
> the community is "Lucene" ... the Lucene project currently releases
> several products, and one of them is called "Apache Solr" ... if you're
> suggestion that we should ultimately elimianate the name "Solr" then we'd
> still have to decide what we're going going to call that end product, the
> artifact that we ship that provides the abstraction layer that Solr
> currently provides.
>
> Even if you mean to suggest that we should only have one unified product
> -- one singular release artifact -- that abstraction layer still needs a
> name.  The name we have now is "Solr", it has brand awareness and a user
> base who understands what it means to say they are "Installing Solr" or
> that a new feature is available when "Using Solr"
>
> Eliminating that name doesn't seem like it would benefit the user
> community in anyway.

What I was saying / trying to say is that we as the community should
move closer together.
In all our minds, especially in the users mind Solr is a Project and
Lucene is a Project. If we'd start over I would propose something like
Lucene-httpd or something similar. But don't get me wrong I just went
one step further than Shai since I think his idea made sense. I don't
think all that would be a big issue to users - they use the http
interface and they don't give a shit if its called solr or not.

For us I think it makes a big difference. In our minds though. I agree
with you that solr is a product and lucene is the project but we
should enforce this. Like all namespaces say o.a.solr not
o.a.lucene.solr so it implies we are two projects which is not true. I
am not sure how we should proceed here but to change our minds we must
change facts. Just my opinion.

simon
>
>
>
> -Hoss
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message