lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:18:51 GMT
+1

This tally is not official, but here is my count of how people voted on 
this merge. A couple people that voted +1 on the first vote did not take 
the time to vote again. I've counted them as +1 as I assume they did not 
change their mind. Take that for what you will. This is not an official 
tally of the vote. If you think your counted wrong, fell free to correct 
me. In my mind, its hard to believe that all of these people on the 
front lines of Lucene/Solr development don't know what they are doing in 
regards to the project.

Bill Au : +1
Doug Cutting
Otis Gospodnetić : +1
Erik Hatcher
Chris Hostetter : -1
Grant Ingersoll : +1
Mike Klaas
Shalin Shekhar Mangar : +1
Ryan McKinley : +1
Mark Miller : +1
Noble Paul : +1
Yonik Seeley : +1
Koji Sekiguchi : +1
Michael Busch : +1
Doron Cohen
Mike McCandless : +1
Bernhard Messer
Robert Muir : +1
Uwe Schindler : +1
Wolfgang Hoschek
Patrick O'Leary
Andi Vajda : +1
Karl Wettin
Simon Willnauer : +1


On 03/08/2010 09:11 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> Apoligies in advance for calling yet another vote, but I just wanted
> to make sure this was official.
> Mike's second VOTE thread could probably technically stand on it's own
> (since it included PMC votes), but given that I said in my previous
> VOTE thread that I was just polling Lucene/Solr committers and would
> call a second PMC vote, that may have acted to suppress PMC votes on
> Mike's thread also.
>
> Please vote for the proposal quoted below to merge lucene/solr development.
> Here's my +1
>
> -Yonik
>
> Mike's call for a VOTE (amongst lucene/solr committers +11 to -1):
> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/a400ffe62ae21aca/vote_merge_the_development_of_solr_lucene_take_2#22d7cd086d9c5cf0
>    
>> Subject: Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)
>> A new vote, that slightly changes proposal from last vote (adding only
>> that Lucene can cut a release even if Solr doesn't):
>>
>>   * Merging the dev lists into a single list.
>>
>>   * Merging committers.
>>
>>   * When any change is committed (to a module that "belongs to" Solr or
>>     to Lucene), all tests must pass.
>>
>>   * Release details will be decided by dev community, but, Lucene may
>>     release without Solr.
>>
>>   * Modulariize the sources: pull things out of Lucene's core (break
>>     out query parser, move all core queries&  analyzers under their
>>     contrib counterparts), pull things out of Solr's core (analyzers,
>>     queries).
>>
>> These things would not change:
>>
>>   * Besides modularizing (above), the source code would remain factored
>>     into separate dirs/modules the way it is now.
>>
>>   * Issue tracking remains separate (SOLR-XXX and LUCENE-XXX
>>     issues).
>>
>>   * User's lists remain separate.
>>
>>   * Web sites remain separate.
>>
>>   * Release artifacts/jars remain separate.
>>      


-- 
- Mark

http://www.lucidimagination.com




Mime
View raw message