From general-return-2297-apmail-lucene-general-archive=lucene.apache.org@lucene.apache.org Tue Mar 09 16:29:08 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 5616 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2010 16:29:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 9 Mar 2010 16:29:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 62971 invoked by uid 500); 9 Mar 2010 16:28:40 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 62923 invoked by uid 500); 9 Mar 2010 16:28:40 -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 62915 invoked by uid 99); 9 Mar 2010 16:28:40 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:28:40 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gsiasf@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.203 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.210.203] (HELO mail-yx0-f203.google.com) (209.85.210.203) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:28:31 +0000 Received: by yxe41 with SMTP id 41so943997yxe.20 for ; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:28:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:content-type :mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=VFdT03Q/iti1ZUR209CygRjkTbhQCN9tT3SeWQlr/qg=; b=BJ7oxWW4757EA8mD2ujayFVWdtctP3hhNAUR7xAgMl8XTef1Ufkd5lL1xnrkYBHqFE nnRyPvIwEQ0Wyv+U7+DRBR6QVddy/BiTndRt4dQn/hlOsRbdx75Bw7tM5G98cY4axoI/ gWCFRYF5qDKLMrAxIqvouPzFe69GgI9pvJaPI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=lGwNFDi4UJ3GHm5JRRGLWFcH4g8CAs5zf3KC3jFEOWXXLWtXSErLYeeWAPzBCJcUpg XUmSkrfo+a0NkHuw5lC5BRiApTamPo6NvO4F4lN6WVJeJs2I6KSWjiqpg0cQMScD01DB nlPZYkp0uXD0LtMqKvItG8WqCEFCwtm+SX9o4= Received: by 10.150.210.17 with SMTP id i17mr492807ybg.122.1268152089873; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:28:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.0.77] (adsl-065-013-152-164.sip.rdu.bellsouth.net [65.13.152.164]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 20sm886070yxe.5.2010.03.09.08.28.07 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:28:08 -0800 (PST) Sender: Grant Ingersoll Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Subject: Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3) From: Grant Ingersoll In-Reply-To: <4B96704D.5020501@apache.org> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:28:06 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <88C5ED00-5D96-421F-ACCD-66CB6706D67D@apache.org> References: <544AC1BC-7A1A-42E5-9CFC-57A60E972760@apache.org> <4B96704D.5020501@apache.org> To: general@lucene.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Mar 9, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Dennis Kubes wrote: > I agree. Most of those things can/should be moved into Lucene. That = doesn't necessitate merging. Separate responsibilities. >=20 > > For that matter, why do we even need to have this discussion at all? = > Most of us Solr committers are Lucene committers. We can simply = start > > committing Solr code to Lucene such that in 6 months the whole > > discussion is moot and the three committers on Solr who aren't = Lucene > > committers can earn their Lucene merit very quickly by patching the > > "Solr" portion of Lucene. We can move all the code to it's > > appropriate place, add a contrib module for the WAR stuff and the > > response writers and voila, Solr is in Lucene, the dev mailing lists > > have merged by the fact that Solr dev would be defunct and all of = the > > proposals in this vote are implemented simply by employing our = commit > > privileges in a concerted way. >=20 > Am I reading you right. Are you are proposing a hostile takeover of = the Lucene project? Even being committers there needs to be discussion = with the community about the best path. Or are you suggesting we bypass = discussion? I am now even more concerned that merging is not the right = way to go. >=20 No. Would you please re-read it and not quote me out of context. You = left the next sentence off, which is of course the vital one.=