Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7509955E-A9BF-4910-A4BD-CEDC863C02E1@apache.org>
References: <c68e39171003081811o491137fdtc32452f1204a6130@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4B95B71D.5050907@gmail.com>
	 <c68e39171003081852g69b3fd7cg60e833e27bfaa1bb@mail.gmail.com>
	 <FFB888BE-8404-4CF5-BA23-157DD3E28423@apache.org>
	 <4B961E80.8070205@getopt.org>
	 <9ac0c6aa1003090240k530f5d64u32fc13ec9fc4313c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7509955E-A9BF-4910-A4BD-CEDC863C02E1@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 08:21:10 -0500
Message-ID: <9ac0c6aa1003090521s3e6ff4ebp2ee2d749a6770726@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
From: Michael McCandless <lucene@mikemccandless.com>
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org> wrote=
:

>> If we had that freedom ("poaching is perfectly fine"), then,
>> interested devs could freely "refactor" across sub projects.
>
> As someone who works on both, I don't think it is fine.  Just look at the=
 function query mess.  Just look at the version mess.  It's very frustratin=
g as a developer and it makes me choose between two projects that I happen =
to like equally, but for different reasons.  If I worked on Nutch, I would =
feel the same way.

But... Lucene should poach from external (eg non-Apache) projects, if
the license works?

Ie if some great analyzer is out there, and Robert spots it, and the
license works, we should poach it?  (In fact he just did this w/
Andrzej's Polish stemmer ;) ).

So we have something of a double standard...

And, ironically, I think it's the fact that there's so much committer
overlap between Solr and Lucene that is causing this antagonism
towards poaching.

When in fact I think poaching, at a wider scale (across unrelated
projects) is a very useful means for any healthy open source software
to evolve.

Why should Lucene be prevented from having a useful feature just
because Solr happened to create it first?

Mike