From general-return-2169-apmail-lucene-general-archive=lucene.apache.org@lucene.apache.org Thu Mar 04 17:01:21 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 16583 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2010 17:01:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2010 17:01:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 9046 invoked by uid 500); 4 Mar 2010 17:01:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 9013 invoked by uid 500); 4 Mar 2010 17:01:10 -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 8999 invoked by uid 99); 4 Mar 2010 17:01:10 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:01:10 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of yseeley@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.48 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.48] (HELO mail-ww0-f48.google.com) (74.125.82.48) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:01:02 +0000 Received: by wwb29 with SMTP id 29so1395257wwb.35 for ; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:00:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=P9dJn2d4EW0q0IbB1Aqv6ix5Db56suyciK1rjX4emiA=; b=M405sYwfQ+ebaQq6TzfKKSTtUHDJh4GMObUfHOcivm6iMuzpqB7wa4HaqEGsTBGe4V CV54bkqzodH7Ys4IqaHSs26vmWTBcKpr+wnv9MyKcw2p2T0zlNarPkFKIsuNni5HSWRr q5ojP/t2M4at8yPoC9dBwUzTM9R/Ih5hhHqeg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=vBQPZLYEd0gtxAa3bG6eMn6GYb5vAtWuZyrQicJ8oK7oiOmABpw63IaQx2oxxO86OM Xzf6yMgyGWfeDcKzSWt7Z13i9rBqemoQ2Rf7eS9dxOrJfBtxjY8MBZPjxQL3G03qaK+8 c0JZjvdCzNIz6V+OmUGdvgR+Cdm5O3f/4PaaY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: yseeley@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.163.81 with SMTP id z59mr1121815wek.95.1267722041234; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:00:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:00:41 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 359454f8ae5aaf77 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development From: Yonik Seeley To: general@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 +1 Great idea! :-) -Yonik 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 >