Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 58217 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2010 09:39:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 9 Mar 2010 09:39:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 1077 invoked by uid 500); 9 Mar 2010 09:38:33 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 1044 invoked by uid 500); 9 Mar 2010 09:38:32 -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 1022 invoked by uid 99); 9 Mar 2010 09:38:32 -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 09:38:32 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.211.174] (HELO mail-yw0-f174.google.com) (209.85.211.174) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:38:25 +0000 Received: by ywh4 with SMTP id 4so2101823ywh.5 for ; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:38:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.118.14 with SMTP id q14mr611325ybc.105.1268127483526; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:38:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 04:38:03 -0500 Message-ID: <9ac0c6aa1003090138g97507eci337ea06ec3f04414@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3) From: Michael McCandless To: general@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org +1 Mike On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Yonik Seeley 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 developmen= t. > 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): >> >> =A0* Merging the dev lists into a single list. >> >> =A0* Merging committers. >> >> =A0* When any change is committed (to a module that "belongs to" Solr or >> =A0 =A0to Lucene), all tests must pass. >> >> =A0* Release details will be decided by dev community, but, Lucene may >> =A0 =A0release without Solr. >> >> =A0* Modulariize the sources: pull things out of Lucene's core (break >> =A0 =A0out query parser, move all core queries & analyzers under their >> =A0 =A0contrib counterparts), pull things out of Solr's core (analyzers, >> =A0 =A0queries). >> >> These things would not change: >> >> =A0* Besides modularizing (above), the source code would remain factored >> =A0 =A0into separate dirs/modules the way it is now. >> >> =A0* Issue tracking remains separate (SOLR-XXX and LUCENE-XXX >> =A0 =A0issues). >> >> =A0* User's lists remain separate. >> >> =A0* Web sites remain separate. >> >> =A0* Release artifacts/jars remain separate. >