>>Go look at the votes. Which ones? from vote 1 2 or 3?? On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > > 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. > > > * 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. > > > * 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. > > >