lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Busch <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:49:01 GMT

I know I had voted +1 in the second vote, because I was happy about the 
fact that Lucene can release w/o Solr. But I spent more time thinking 
about this last weekend. I still don't really WANT this change, but can 
live with the current proposal. Hence, a +0 in this "official" vote 
summarizes probably more accurately how I feel about it.

Question: Is it sufficient to have more +1s than -1s for this vote to 
pass? I thought for votes as significant as this one a -1 veto is a 


On 3/8/10 6:11 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):
>> 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.

View raw message