lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otis Gospodnetic <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:07:32 GMT

----- Original Message ----
> From: Grant Ingersoll <>
> To:
> Sent: Fri, March 12, 2010 11:21:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
On Mar 12, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:

> Here's what I didn't like. The vote was:
> * ambiguous
> * 
> something that the Solr devs tried to push through and bullied folks on during 
> discussion (those who originally had questions were persuaded that it was the 
> "right thing to do" by those in the PMC leadership).

It was Mike's 
> proposal to begin with and he isn't a Solr committer.  As I said in the 
> email the delta of Lucene committers who are not Solr committers are all either 
> +1 or 0 and they are the ones doing the work.  Go look at the votes.  
> As for persuasion, isn't that how discussions work?  Both sides make there 
> case and then people vote.

I think that's part of the problem.  There was no clear vote, but discussion+voting all mixed
up.  Which is why it's hard to get a clear, objective picture of what happened with the vote.

> * not healthy for the 
> project

Clearly, you are in the minority on that view, especially given 
> that the all of the most active Lucene committers are for it.  There is 
> still going to be Solr and still going to be Lucene. 

Does "most active" vs. "less actively" matter during voting or is everyone's vote count the
same?  If the latter, than "most active" mention above has no merit.

> * subject to 
> VETO since at the very least it proposes code modifications, but also 
> because:

No, it doesn't.  No one has proposed any code mods.  
> There is still going to be Solr and still going to be Lucene.   Separate 
> JARs.  Separate WARs.  You will likely see some code moved (analyzers 
> to start), but you can veto those specific moves when the time comes if you 
> don't think it makes sense.

That's correct.


View raw message