Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rcmuir@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1209060923340.10212@frisbee>
References: <337827477.8.1346943742095.JavaMail.hudson@aegis.apache.org>
 <CAOdYfZWF5QNQmQTa_eaBKLTL+U65kn7e3Paq-7GUokH5YeBVGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1209060923340.10212@frisbee>
From: Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:31:52 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAOdYfZVgHxd9OeLJ4h8VQCPzd0dDFndA8zUMYWupjmGmWe7KGg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [JENKINS] Lucene-Solr-NightlyTests-4.x - Build # 26 - Failure
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Chris Hostetter
<hossman_lucene@fucit.org> wrote:
>
> : the real problem is the solr/lib which is "shared" by solr and solrj:
> : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3686
>
> I suspect the only reason it was ever setup that way, was to
> prevent having duplicate copies of jars in svn and when we ship releases.
> svn & src releasese are no longer an issue now that we use ivy, which just
> leaves the binary releases...
>
> but honestly i'm not sure why that was ever even an issue -- core has a
> dependency on solrj, so why can't we just tell non-war users who wnat to
> use core to just copy the dependencies directly from solrj/lib?

I'm +1 for either that, or moving the hack to the binary-packaging, or
whatever we can do.

it would be great to compile solrj's src with only its dependencies
(its fine if it runs tests with solr-core and its), and it would be
also great to remove the "ivy-sync-disable" so that developers dont
have clean-jars issues anymore.

-- 
lucidworks.com

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