lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Build/deploy Maven artifacts outside of Lucene/Solr
Date Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:27:26 GMT
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Robert Muir <> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Benson Margulies <> wrote:
>> If it's a maven project, you do the same thing, patching the pom to
>> shade to change the packages if you want, or just changing the
>> coordinates.
>> You publish the results to central via OSSRH under your coordinates.
> I think this illustrates Mike's point exactly though? As PMC members
> how do we know this was done appropriately?

How do you know it's done 'appropriately' in your scenario? You could
have had just as many board members up your nose by using your
ant/github procedure and depositing the resulting bundle on Apache
'dist' as an 'auxiliary binary bundle'.

> I have no idea about shade, coordinates, any of that, I understand
> search engines pretty well, and the lucene/solr codebase ok. How do
> PMC members know that 'fake maven releases' as you describe are any
> better than 'fake maven releases' like we had before that caused all
> the controversy?

By knowing a few simple facts. The policy issues here derive from the
following questions:

1) Did the PMC publish something (either to, or
2) Was the something a formal Apache release (consisting of source) or
was it a 'convenience binary'?
3) If it was a convenience binary, does it annoy someone by including
code under some other project's package names?

If you don't want to risk being hassled, don't end up answering:

   1: yes 2: yes, and there's a binary in it anywhere.
   1: yes, 2: doesn't matter, 3: yes

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

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

View raw message