lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Rutherglen <jason.rutherg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:45:52 GMT
> * I think Grant may be right.  We don't need this discussion.  Because the Solr/Lucene
developer overlap is excellent, why not just start moving selected Solr code to new Lucene
modules, just like Mike proposed we move Analysis from Lucene core to a new Lucene module?

The underlying hesitation could be that the initial proposal sounds
like a press release.  With all the discussing, a few modules could
already have been moved (given the number of keys pressed to enter the
emails).

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Otis Gospodnetic
<otis_gospodnetic@yahoo.com> wrote:
> * Re poaching (aka cross-project refactoring) - I think this is the way to go.  I think
this is normal evolution of OSS projects.  I think this should be done if the functionality
was not committed to the best (lowest common denominator?) project from the beginning, as
in all the Solr/Lucene examples brought up
>
> * I think Grant may be right.  We don't need this discussion.  Because the Solr/Lucene
developer overlap is excellent, why not just start moving selected Solr code to new Lucene
modules, just like Mike proposed we move Analysis from Lucene core to a new Lucene module?
>
> * What do people think about doing what I wrote above as step 1 in this whole process?
 When that is done in N months, we can see if we can improve on it?  This would also fit
"progress, not perfection" mantra.
>
> Otis
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Otis Gospodnetic <otis_gospodnetic@yahoo.com>
>> To: general@lucene.apache.org
>> Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 12:23:59 PM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> (just using Yonik's email to reply, but my comments are more general)
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> > From: Yonik Seeley
>> > To: general@lucene.apache.org
>> > Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 10:04:20 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> > wrote:
>> > > I have built 10s of projects that
>> > > have simply used Lucene as an API and had no need for Solr, and I've built
>> > > 10s of projects where Solr made perfect sense. So, I appreciate their
>> > > separation.
>> >
>> > As does everyone - which is why there will always be separate
>> > downloads.  As a user, the only side affect you should see is an
>> > improved Lucene and Solr.
>> >
>> > Saying that Solr should move some stuff to Lucene for Lucene's
>> > benefit, without regard to if it's actually benefitial to Solr, is a
>> > non-starter.  The lucene/solr committers have been down that road
>> > before.  The solution that most committers agreed would improve the
>> > development of both projects is to merge development.
>>
>> * I'd completely understand the "non-starter" part if Lucene and Solr had
>> disjoint sets of committers.  But that's not the case.
>>
>> * Which is why I (like a few others) don't see why this whole thing cannot be
>> solved by "better discussion of what to develop where from the get-go"
>>
>> * Whenever people listed features built in Solr that really should have been in
>> Lucene, I wondered "so why were not they developed in Lucene in the first
>> place?"  Again, this should be possible because the same person can commit to
>> both projects.
>>
>> * I hear Grant's explanation on wanting something in Solr ASAP and not wanting
>> to commit that something to Lucene (even though it logically belongs there)
>> because Solr is not on Lucene trunk, but isn't this just a matter of getting
>> "Lucene trunk nightly -> Solr trunk lib in svn" process going?
>>
>> * Ian is 100% right.  This stuff clearly requires more discussion and a proper
>> VOTE should wait a week or so.
>>
>> Otis
>
>

Mime
View raw message