lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Muir <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Build/deploy Maven artifacts outside of Lucene/Solr
Date Mon, 23 Apr 2012 23:21:27 GMT
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Benson Margulies <> wrote:

> Thus, I claim that this debate is fundamentally about package
> renaming, not publication.
> Shall I be maximally annoying and mention OSGi again?

Its not really a debate, its 'how do we do this'. (I can argue your
claim is wrong, but i won't, ive said it before and I stick with what
I've said)...

The current problem is for releases, how to handle this stuff is
currently confusing. There are a few ideas here, and some of them
maybe are possible, but we need to come to some sort of agreement on
how to handle these kind of situations. Currently we have no patched
jars, magically, but since we depend on over 100 of them, the
probability of this situation staying the same for any length of time
is very low.

I don't really care what we do, but i just want:
* a process for dealing with patched dependencies (that doesn't
involve illegal publication of other people's stuff in maven under our
* a process for dealing with dependencies that aren't in maven (that
doesn't involve illegal publication of other people's stuff in maven
under our name)
* the two processes to not be the release manager's job to deal with.
* the two processes to be easy enough to understand to pmc members so
they actually understand WTF is going on with our releases without it
being a huge mystery.

One implication of what I want is that 'for development' (whats
committed to trunk) is the same as 'for releases'. Because anything
else is just a big 'RM, you go deal with fixing this later'. So I
don't think we should let trunk get all kinds of screwy dependencies
and leave it to release managers to fix up the mess.

Another is that even if we work and figure all this out, its still so
crazy complicated that a bunch of people here just say 'this isnt
worth it, as a PMC member i dont understand all this, this is supposed
to be a search engine project' (I'm not trying to call out Mike on
this, but his email maybe alludes that some people could possibly feel
this way about maven).

And as a side note: Uwe's ideas bring up a nice potential compromise
for simplification: maybe just lucene (as an API) should be in maven
and not solr (as an application?). Its worth thinking about: solr has
many many more third-party dependencies.  Dependencies are really
really expensive.


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

View raw message