From general-return-2138-apmail-lucene-general-archive=lucene.apache.org@lucene.apache.org Wed Mar 03 23:49:01 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 28006 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2010 23:49:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 3 Mar 2010 23:49:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 40150 invoked by uid 500); 3 Mar 2010 23:48:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 39980 invoked by uid 500); 3 Mar 2010 23:48:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 39972 invoked by uid 99); 3 Mar 2010 23:48:51 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:48:51 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bill.w.au@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.176] (HELO mail-gy0-f176.google.com) (209.85.160.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:48:42 +0000 Received: by gyb13 with SMTP id 13so864803gyb.35 for ; Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:48:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=pRMHCqTroYvOBo6dTaE6fRqIDePT/LsOZeEKoaqT+M0=; b=n/Y2u6FwpmD8eHk/BL1wN4MY8/cMLJT3tOve1Ah8nbvlJMX6Lbdbns/DDadu6+r+Ze DRSXOCMxAXKOH2Iu3FHkjh5f2YXBFB4L/Gewx77CfoNORq0jT8edHi/oP1NSmD1Q//bx rXH8Wjw/BavygHzATYg59o0x4TvnQijGpAANE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=gjnGJPABPr+sjygaKMMuOrgqvN/qQDeYoPVF1o63UC5w2Mn9IuuQE0CWEGswcRxrfn sSvXKPFu+zF71uWJR7XFyGgU1Lo00EYUfg8/HHcXaGx0oDz5QspGMm8Da3V2CTd9VYD9 Lj2WjvepP5PwxeU6PRnxSU8JSK6F5pDnzQDGA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.213.21 with SMTP id l21mr1690079ybg.166.1267660101917; Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:48:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 18:48:21 -0500 Message-ID: <3b5f72031003031548v29cdf72ct62d3c3d3cd2a6c0@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development From: Bill Au To: general@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd351dc121b930480ee1ea6 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --000e0cd351dc121b930480ee1ea6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 What does merging development mean? I think we probably should be more specific since that can mean different things to different folks. We should be all voting on the same thing. Bill On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > Many Lucene/Solr committers think that merging development would be a > benefit to both projects. > Separate downloads would remain (among other things), so end users > would not be impacted (except for higher quality products over time). > Since this is a change to Lucene/Solr project development, I'd like to > get a format vote from the committers of both projects. > If there are 3 +1s and more +1s than -1s, we can pass this to the > Lucene PMC to ratify. > > -Yonik > > Discussion thread: > > http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/c7817932400808ad/factor_out_a_standalone_shared_analysis_package_for_nutch_solr_lucene > --000e0cd351dc121b930480ee1ea6--