Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: unknown (nike.apache.org: error in processing during lookup of
 pjaol@pjaol.com)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c68e39171003081811o491137fdtc32452f1204a6130@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c68e39171003081811o491137fdtc32452f1204a6130@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:16:16 -0800
Message-ID: <1e33aedb1003081916q5f8225c9j75816e5302482ed7@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
From: "patrick o'leary" <pjaol@pjaol.com>
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d26cacd5943d0481559a04

--0016e6d26cacd5943d0481559a04
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hmm, Right now I consider Solr too far from lucene to see a merge succeed,
if you asked me 2 years ago I would have said merge merge merge.

I also think Solr hasn't worked out a good roadmap or schedule for releases,
which I'm sure will impact the lucene world.
So

-1


On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Yonik Seeley <yseeley@gmail.com> wrote:

> Apoligies in advance for calling yet another vote, but I just wanted
> to make sure this was official.
> Mike's second VOTE thread could probably technically stand on it's own
> (since it included PMC votes), but given that I said in my previous
> VOTE thread that I was just polling Lucene/Solr committers and would
> call a second PMC vote, that may have acted to suppress PMC votes on
> Mike's thread also.
>
> Please vote for the proposal quoted below to merge lucene/solr development.
> Here's my +1
>
> -Yonik
>
> Mike's call for a VOTE (amongst lucene/solr committers +11 to -1):
>
> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/a400ffe62ae21aca/vote_merge_the_development_of_solr_lucene_take_2#22d7cd086d9c5cf0
> > Subject: Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)
> > A new vote, that slightly changes proposal from last vote (adding only
> > that Lucene can cut a release even if Solr doesn't):
> >
> >  * Merging the dev lists into a single list.
> >
> >  * Merging committers.
> >
> >  * When any change is committed (to a module that "belongs to" Solr or
> >    to Lucene), all tests must pass.
> >
> >  * Release details will be decided by dev community, but, Lucene may
> >    release without Solr.
> >
> >  * Modulariize the sources: pull things out of Lucene's core (break
> >    out query parser, move all core queries & analyzers under their
> >    contrib counterparts), pull things out of Solr's core (analyzers,
> >    queries).
> >
> > These things would not change:
> >
> >  * Besides modularizing (above), the source code would remain factored
> >    into separate dirs/modules the way it is now.
> >
> >  * Issue tracking remains separate (SOLR-XXX and LUCENE-XXX
> >    issues).
> >
> >  * User's lists remain separate.
> >
> >  * Web sites remain separate.
> >
> >  * Release artifacts/jars remain separate.
>

--0016e6d26cacd5943d0481559a04--