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 gsiasf@gmail.com designates
 209.85.221.190 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        b=aVtEY4TLEYiBvNrjBlKtqLqoXzG1EfaHaKf9SbwYhJ72Ou0T/77gUVrynVhAACpAYh
         ftipX/2Uh6oAChV1JkzoC4eUrMf387rXEQS28T7qlQq7qrjXr5vGtB/6n8X/cgsp9y31
         8bUiM/z5VLEbP6HV/Qt+UhPVsOB5eYw/xxE+g=
Sender: Grant Ingersoll <gsiasf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Subject: Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
From: Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <f18c9dde1003112239s36b749abq27286f397ea12201@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:00:23 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A5B4B551-B2D8-4783-8CD5-64A5201A8190@apache.org>
References: <c68e39171003081811o491137fdtc32452f1204a6130@mail.gmail.com>
 <c68e39171003111829y4bf77738o6d55b1ab20ba2f34@mail.gmail.com>
 <1e33aedb1003112039y6ead45c6x51decefb73be5099@mail.gmail.com>
 <f18c9dde1003112239s36b749abq27286f397ea12201@mail.gmail.com>
To: general@lucene.apache.org


On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:39 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:39 AM, patrick o'leary <pjaol@pjaol.com> =
wrote:
>> Hows that?
>>=20
>> Which vote has been passed? 1,2 or 3?
>> Considering how much has been discussed / altered in email threads, =
what's
>> actually been voted upon?
>>=20
>> The proposition is definitely unclear, and needs full fleshing out =
and
>> discussion before another vote is called.
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Yonik Seeley <yonik@apache.org> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>> Thanks everyone, this vote has passed.
>>> A bit more contentious of a PMC vote than usual, but the committer
>>> vote was clear.
> While I have voted +1 I have to admin that I don't know which vote has =
passed or
> if at all. The noise on this vote / issue was extremely high from a
> community side I rather consider this as being far away from a
> consensus decision. I have to agree with chris that due to all the
> community discussions and arguments on the issue some might change
> their mind or come up with a proposal that work better for everybody.
> Lets wait a week or two, discuss again and vote again. Unless we don't
> get a clear vote without all this discussions I'd say there is still
> something "wrong" with the proposal.
>=20

The vote is always the one proposed on the thread.  It was in Yonik's =
original email on this thread.


> Don't get me wrong, I agree the committer vote was kind of clear but
> both projects are more than a list of committers and if the community
> is unhappy we should take the time and revise such a major structural
> / procedural change. Are we in a rush!? I don't think so.

I'd hardly say the community is unhappy.  A few people have expressed =
unhappiness, but overall the large majority of people that expressed =
interest were for it.  The primary objection seems to be concern that =
Solr is going to take over Lucene and all of Lucene is going to be =
consumed by a HTTP Server code, which has been rejected a number of =
times by all who are for it.

-Grant=