Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of buschmic@gmail.com designates
 209.85.219.221 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=Wh2iKegcPVmZ4TYQdBGa62kC0MBq3xNr/rlaqfiN10NLPjXn12OoM5HtMrWvY5beuw
         5njrWUlMbzrKT8fGrQg2HGLx40Rsks5G7DpkpuuQ4NappuDSqwrRt4A0GN+/1byOgTdl
         GtACZR+P2fuXVkudstggcW6BaAlkCJx7KKYvM=
Message-ID: <4B8F2546.6040505@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:13:10 -0800
From: Michael Busch <buschmic@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100216 Thunderbird/3.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development
References: <c68e39171003031442i222fa450r16a4b38b21fc01f1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <3b5f72031003031548v29cdf72ct62d3c3d3cd2a6c0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4B8EF6B9.9080001@gmail.com>
 <4B8EF828.3080903@gmail.com>	 <4B8F01AE.8070609@gmail.com>
 <4B8F08A1.6070200@gmail.com>
 <c68e39171003031800w24334760g20c060f7cb112120@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c68e39171003031800w24334760g20c060f7cb112120@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 3/3/10 6:00 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Michael Busch<buschmic@gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> So if it seems like that most people are concerned about releases (even
>> those you are generally in favor of this proposal), then maybe we should
>> discuss exactly this point. We haven't really discussed alternatives about
>> the release alignment. This vote feels rushed.
>>      
> It's been discussed for a week, and I'm with Mark - I'm only for a
> real merge of development, and that includes release schedules.
>
> -Yonik
>
>    

How will we merge release policies? (or are they exactly the same?) Does 
Solr use the same release numbering? Does it have the same 
backwards-compatibility requirements as Lucene?

If we release Solr 1.5.0 with Lucene 3.1.0, and we find a bug in the 
Lucene jar and want to release a 3.1.1 bugfix release, will we also 
release a Solr 1.5.1, even though all Solr jars would be identical to 
the 1.5.0?
Or will we just release Solr/Lucene 4.0.0 next and always use same 
release numbers?

How will we avoid longer release cycles? Solr had had very infrequent 
releases. What were the reasons for that? Are we comfortable with saying 
we'll just try to be disciplined enough or is there a way to somehow 
enforce release frequency? It seems certain that if more people work on 
the code, there will at any given point be more patches/new features 
under development and things need to be coordinated in a way that allows 
frequent releases.

In an earlier mail I gave the following example: If we had a separate 
analyzer module, and we add an analyzer in a new language to it, it 
would be cool to release it soon, without having to wait until 
Lucene/Solr are ready for a release. The pace here can be faster, 
because I imagine in such an Analyzer module it's much less common that 
a patch "touches everything". What do people think about this? Maybe 
it's just a nice wish, but not realizable, because there'd be a lot of 
version management overhead. But maybe not?

I'm not against this whole thing and I'm not trying to be difficult 
here, and I dislike endless discussions just as everyone else. But I 
honestly don't know right now how to vote, because I have those open 
questions and know that a lot of other people here are concerned about 
the release alignment as well.

  Michael