lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Willnauer <simon.willna...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Fri, 12 Mar 2010 06:39:24 GMT
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:39 AM, patrick o'leary <pjaol@pjaol.com> wrote:
> Hows that?
>
> Which vote has been passed? 1,2 or 3?
> Considering how much has been discussed / altered in email threads, what's
> actually been voted upon?
>
> The proposition is definitely unclear, and needs full fleshing out and
> discussion before another vote is called.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Yonik Seeley <yonik@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks everyone, this vote has passed.
>> A bit more contentious of a PMC vote than usual, but the committer
>> vote was clear.
While I have voted +1 I have to admin that I don't know which vote has passed or
if at all. The noise on this vote / issue was extremely high from a
community side I rather consider this as being far away from a
consensus decision. I have to agree with chris that due to all the
community discussions and arguments on the issue some might change
their mind or come up with a proposal that work better for everybody.
Lets wait a week or two, discuss again and vote again. Unless we don't
get a clear vote without all this discussions I'd say there is still
something "wrong" with the proposal.

Don't get me wrong, I agree the committer vote was kind of clear but
both projects are more than a list of committers and if the community
is unhappy we should take the time and revise such a major structural
/ procedural change. Are we in a rush!? I don't think so.

Simon
>>
>> -Yonik
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Yonik Seeley <yseeley@gmail.com> 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):
>> >
>> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/a400ffe62ae21aca/vote_merge_the_development_of_solr_lucene_take_2#22d7cd086d9c5cf0
>> >> 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.
>> >
>>
>

Mime
View raw message