>>Go look at the votes.

Which ones? from vote 1 2 or 3??



On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org>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.
>
>
>