lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Rutherglen <>
Subject Re: Factor out a standalone, shared analysis package for Nutch/Solr/Lucene?
Date Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:04:05 GMT
I think it's Solr rather than SOLR. :-)  A little birdy told me so...

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Mark Miller <> wrote:
> On 02/28/2010 12:52 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
>> ... I think it's a good
>> idea for SOLR to ride on Lucene's trunk again...
>> However, I'm -1 for these points:
>>  * When a change it committed to Lucene, it must pass all Solr tests.
>>  * Release both at once.
> These are huge reasons why we *don't* want SOLR to ride on Lucene's trunk
> anymore.
> bq. but we have to ask why they weren't added to Lucene in the first place.
> Because the two communities are fairly separate in a lot of ways. This is
> one of the things a potential merge would solve. We can say that the
> projects should communicate more all we look - the history of saying such
> things implies there will be no changes though.
> I'm still +0 here, but I'm starting to lean towards merge just sitting here
> disagreeing with everyone arguing against :)
> Solr is actually part of the project "Lucene" along with Lucene-Java. The
> divide now is actually almost unnatural considering how things
> are organized.
> To those arguing that this would make Solr a first class citizen of Lucene
> over other search solutions that use Lucene, that actually already is the
> case, and the way things are setup, it should be. Solr is part of the Lucene
> project. Other Lucene search engines are not. That doesn't mean we shouldn't
> consider Lucene changes in the context of all the projects that may use it,
> but Solr already is a first class citizen. Its not just some project using
> Lucene - its *the* Lucene project's Search Server. Lucene devs *should*
> consider Solr when developing on Lucene Java - they are the same project -
> Lucene.
> --
> - Mark

View raw message