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 12:30:32 GMT
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:39 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> The vote is always the one proposed on the thread.  It was in Yonik's original email
on this thread.

I would guess that 50% of the people replying to this issue where not
aware of this!

>
>
>> 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.
>
> I'd hardly say the community is unhappy.  A few people have expressed unhappiness, but
overall the large majority of people that expressed interest were for it.  The primary objection
seems to be concern that Solr is going to take over Lucene and all of Lucene is going to be
consumed by a HTTP Server code, which has been rejected a number of times by all who are for
it

I don't think that is the case. A large amount of different concerns
are out there. Simply based on the amount of "huge" comments this
seems to be not a clearly passed vote.

simon
>
> -Grant

Mime
View raw message