lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bernd Fondermann <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:26:45 GMT
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 13:54, Dennis Kubes <> wrote:
> This has definitely NOT passed.  With as much contention, discussion, and
> debate as there has been on this, saying that it has passed is akin to
> saying "we are just going to do it anyways".  This is being railroaded IMO
> and needs to be taken to a higher level within the Apache organization.

What's it that you don't like about the vote?
o that it wasn't prepended with enough community [DISCUSS]
o the phrasing of the vote itself
o the length of the voting process
o the outcome of the vote
o something else

Just curious.

BTW, I think it will be hard to appeal to the board or any other body
of the ASF (IMHO).
The Lucene PMC is tasked with directing the project and functional in
doing so (as far as I can see).
And honestly, if there would be another VOTE (or 10 such votes),
wouldn't the outcome in terms of general direction of the project be
the same, entirely?


> Dennis
> Yonik Seeley wrote:
>> Thanks everyone, this vote has passed.
>> A bit more contentious of a PMC vote than usual, but the committer
>> vote was clear.
>> -Yonik
>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:11 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