lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:52:57 GMT
Frankly, if you guys insist, we could drop the modularize point and take 
yet another vote. If that's going to be your veto toehold, we don't need 
it cluttering things up. Modularizing Lucene doesn't need to be in there 
(though it already is somewhat modularized, and people plan to work 
further along those lines regardless of this vote). Specific things we 
would like to pull from Solr into Lucene don't need to be in there. All 
of a sudden I'm agreeing with Hoss about goals rather than actual steps 
;) Because those points are not important to this vote at all - they are 
more examples of what we will be able to do than mandates. They are the 
goodness that will come, not reasons for vetoes. (nor do I agree they 
fall under the "code modication veto for a valid technical reason" anyway)

This is about merging dev so we can put code where it belongs and do 
things that can make sense - its not a vote where specific code 
refactorings matter at all - we don't develop and organize code with PMC 

On 03/09/2010 12:40 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Hey Chris,
> see my response to Michael.
> But quickly,
> the first star is not a code change. Its procedural.
> the second star, and I'm sure youll have arguments with this :), is 
> not something we are specifically voting on. The reason we are merging 
> dev is obviously so that those changes can occur - but this vote is 
> not to force those changes. Even those against the merge would like to 
> see those changes. Putting more queries, querparsers, and analyzers 
> into Lucene is not a controversial change :)
> On 03/09/2010 12:33 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>> On 3/8/10 9:26 PM, "Mark Miller"<>  wrote:
>>> Also, we have decided on no code restructurings - the hope is to allow
>>> them (and in the past you have championed some of the ones we hope to
>>> see), but there are no restructurings that are part of the vote.
>> Ummm, that's not true.
>> Mike's last proposal listed these points:
>>   * When any change is committed (to a module that "belongs to" Solr or
>>     to Lucene), all tests must pass.
>>   * 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).
>> If those don't have to do with code changes, then I'm not sure what 
>> they are
>> and would appreciate clarification.
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>> Senior Computer Scientist
>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
>> Email:
>> WWW:
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

- Mark

View raw message