lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:32:37 GMT
Hi Mike,

>> As someone who works on both, I don't think it is fine.  Just look at the
>> function query mess.  Just look at the version mess.  It's very frustrating
>> as a developer and it makes me choose between two projects that I happen to
>> like equally, but for different reasons.  If I worked on Nutch, I would feel
>> the same way.
> But... Lucene should poach from external (eg non-Apache) projects, if
> the license works?
> Ie if some great analyzer is out there, and Robert spots it, and the
> license works, we should poach it?  (In fact he just did this w/
> Andrzej's Polish stemmer ;) ).

Yep. This is what I was talking about before when I was talking about
"insulation". Code duplication is a fact of software development, and
happens all the time in open source, ROTS, GOTS, OTS,
research/academia/whatever. It doesn't suffice to say it's bad in all cases,
nor is it always good either.

In this case, it maintains the separation between projects that are really
layered on top of one another (Lucene being the lower layer, and Solr being
the higher).

In addition, FWIW, I agree with Andrzej that to the best of my knowledge,
there is nothing wrong with doing so at the ASF, with proper attribution and
so long as the licenses are compatible.

> So we have something of a double standard...


> And, ironically, I think it's the fact that there's so much committer
> overlap between Solr and Lucene that is causing this antagonism
> towards poaching.
> When in fact I think poaching, at a wider scale (across unrelated
> projects) is a very useful means for any healthy open source software
> to evolve.

Agreed. It allows sound innovative technology infusion and solutions to
develop over time, and then be integrated back into the operational fray
with reduced risk and cost.

> Why should Lucene be prevented from having a useful feature just
> because Solr happened to create it first?

IMO, it shouldn't. 


Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA

View raw message