From general-return-2346-apmail-lucene-general-archive=lucene.apache.org@lucene.apache.org Fri Mar 12 14:39:31 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 1310 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2010 14:39:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 12 Mar 2010 14:39:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 11438 invoked by uid 500); 12 Mar 2010 14:38:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 11411 invoked by uid 500); 12 Mar 2010 14:38:53 -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 11403 invoked by uid 99); 12 Mar 2010 14:38:53 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:38:53 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [65.99.197.50] (HELO s01.igfoo.com) (65.99.197.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:38:52 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by s01.igfoo.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75E80F343A3 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:38:29 -0600 (CST) X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.5.4 s01.igfoo.com 75E80F343A3 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=igfoo.com; s=mail; t=1268404709; bh=hjuUxqVPQhcxk/F65CXO+tkx1dH0ZnzwbytrP201e/g=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=EjUq8qsxiJmB 8FY1TzZVcIyq4wXiNpTHgwRZg5YRw009T8RPzRWgtDgLMuqFkjfeMpbGEM659Ny1DVu FjdLrSyHn/qTFss1hQMS+tW2kg3ZLQKru++Qut0xnzxO2EXfpkVqr45mN7g90v9hKNU Z5NGSPJ4LlbL/3C51XSYYnYeo= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at s01.igfoo.com Received: from s01.igfoo.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (s01.igfoo.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X-Fg0bCCscBs for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:38:25 -0600 (CST) Received: from [192.168.1.26] (pool-71-96-122-162.dfw.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.96.122.162]) by s01.igfoo.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4984BF343A2 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:38:25 -0600 (CST) X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.5.4 s01.igfoo.com 4984BF343A2 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=igfoo.com; s=mail; t=1268404705; bh=hjuUxqVPQhcxk/F65CXO+tkx1dH0ZnzwbytrP201e/g=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=dj+vwHJ5El10 d+mzU4oGu8w8RohBXOYXaQsXzkivLnIaFlWCEhPFbnY/ioRxRx3eJOINhw+G4EnnTmH A3Ft+ZdKTiri9kGGYw8XDOMysnlJ6Pjob6AbzhgWhEE0QBxD7cyTMjhsh9v+UXWswnp JMDVwgy6KlpbJuWYyWDm/Pm7k= Message-ID: <4B9A51E0.7020000@apache.org> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:38:24 -0600 From: Dennis Kubes User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: general@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3) References: <4B9A3990.8030102@apache.org> <43C2ED27-1D5C-4F66-9382-EC5603445C86@apache.org> <4B9A4C84.6020504@apache.org> <4B9A4E9F.1030406@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4B9A4E9F.1030406@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don't try and make this personal. That is just juvenile and will only take this discussion (If that is what this is) in the wrong direction. Being overruled doesn't mean I won't make my opinion known vocally when I think a very large mistake is being made. And you aren't just overruling me. Many people have expressed discontent with this plan, but you guys are pushing it through anyways. Dennis Mark Miller wrote: > You have come a long way from "If that means I get overruled, so be it." > Dennis. > > Its a PMC vote where majority rules. As Bernd noted, vetoes are for > specific svn > commits with valid technical reasons. If you guys want to try and drag > it out forever, > I don't see much to stop you from trying, but the whole situation is > pretty clear. > > I, for one, am looking forward to what this merge will bring to Lucene > and Solr. > > > On 03/12/2010 09:15 AM, Dennis Kubes wrote: >> Yes railroading. >> >> Many people don't want this to occur. More than just minus 2. >> Underlying concerns are not being addressed. Vetos count. Ignoring >> that is ignoring how Apache operates. Merging projects is definitely >> a code change. Getting around it by saying this is a goal is >> fundamentally wrong. >> >> 1) What prevents functionality be moved over into Lucene within the >> current project structure? Nothing, so why are we even discussing >> this. >> >> 2) Why is Solr getting special treatment? Because there is a lot of >> committer overlap? Should I propose to merge Nutch in too, lets just >> have one big project, no distinctions. >> >> 3) Why the big push here to blur project responsibilities? Idk, I >> keep wondering that myself. >> >> Dennis >> >> Grant Ingersoll wrote: >> > On Mar 12, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Dennis Kubes wrote: >> > >> >> This has definitely NOT passed. With as much contention, >> >> discussion, and debate as there has been on this, saying that it >> >> has passed is akin to saying "we are just going to do it >> >> anyways". This is being railroaded IMO and needs to be taken to >> >> a higher level within the Apache organization. >> > >> > How is two weeks of discussion and all the committers on the >> > projects minus 2 being for it and three different votes on it (all >> > with the same outcome), "railroading"? -Grant > >