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
 74.125.83.48 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=NEmq2jm5c5xsQ+8FSN/sA7RAiDASy+5o0NvBiHVYjghRT1mo8+9tQL5U6CnzWCkCDm
         t/bGAGTZyPAV/wzd4Z8O2j9/icx85D4sqV/wa4p2ef5tGsTHFGVDbzSijvEN5HZ+8rkm
         6UbsaGaWDybL7PUwzlWMR2bf5A0Ks4MS4yEnY=
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: <C7BB9FAF.DD41%Chris.A.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:44:55 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AB405ECF-5545-4574-8309-D2BB5690014A@apache.org>
References: <C7BB9FAF.DD41%Chris.A.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov>
To: general@lucene.apache.org


On Mar 9, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:

> Hey Grant,
>=20
> On 3/9/10 5:49 AM, "Grant Ingersoll" <gsingers@apache.org> wrote:
>=20
>> For that matter, why do we even need to have this discussion at all?  =
Most of
>> us Solr committers are Lucene committers.  We can simply start =
committing Solr
>> code to Lucene such that in 6 months the whole discussion is moot and =
the
>> three committers on Solr who aren't Lucene committers can earn their =
Lucene
>> merit very quickly by patching the "Solr" portion of Lucene.
>=20
> Sure, if folks agree on those patches and the community finds them =
useful,
> and the patches follow the dev process of Lucene(-java), then so be =
it.
> However, it seems like this could have been done already, no? Many of =
the
> things you and others have discussed merging have been around for a =
while
> besides spatial. Is it simply developers/resources that is lacking in
> Lucene(-java) and time? Or are there other reasons? It sounds to me =
based on
> the desire to sync up tests, to follow the same release schedule/etc., =
that
> there are in fact, other reasons.

Um, I'm a committer.  I've earned the right to apply patches that fit =
with the project and I've earned the merit to make that decision.  So =
have all the other committers.   Besides the fact, all I would be =
committing are the things people have already expressed an interest in =
anyway.

>=20
>> We can move all=20
>> the code to it's appropriate place, add a contrib module for the WAR =
stuff and
>> the response writers and voila, Solr is in Lucene, the dev mailing =
lists have
>> merged by the fact that Solr dev would be defunct and all of the =
proposals in
>> this vote are implemented simply by employing our commit privileges =
in a
>> concerted way.  Yet, somehow, me thinks that isn't a good solution =
either,
>> right?  Yet it is perfectly "legal" and is just as valid a solution =
as the
>> "poaching" solution and in a lot of ways seems to be what Chris is =
proposing.
>=20
> Whether or not what you're saying is good or what I'm saying is good =
or not
> will be decided by the community within Lucene(-java), as well as the =
one
> within Solr. All I'm for is not circumventing that process, in any
> direction. If what you suggest above happens in a concise, traceable,
> beneficial way to both projects and communities, then I'm for that.

No one is circumventing any process and the implication is just wrong.  =
We are having the discussion.  But even so, as a committer, my job is to =
work within community to fix/improve the code.  Right now, I see lots of =
room for improvement in Lucene by integrating some of those things from =
Solr (and Nutch) while keeping Lucene, Solr and Nutch whole from an end =
user perspective.  At the same time, I want to see Solr and Nutch whole. =
  Any other implication is simply wrong.

>=20
> At the same time, I also favor insulation wherever possible and I =
personally
> like the separation of the 2 projects. I have built 10s of projects =
that
> have simply used Lucene as an API and had no need for Solr, and I've =
built
> 10s of projects where Solr made perfect sense.

And how at all would those 10 projects be affected at all?  Please read =
the proposal again.  It's not like there is going to be some uber JAR.  =
I won't let it happen as I have more than 10 projects that are pure =
Lucene.  Part of my day job is supporting Lucene.  I've spent the past 5 =
years of my life donating to Lucene, and so have many others.  The =
argument is simply invalid and has been refuted so many times now by ALL =
those who actually do the work that I don't understand why you insist on =
bringing it up over and over again.


> So, I appreciate their
> separation. I also have a lot of experience in these types of =
situations as
> I've been involved in 2-3 of them over the past few years at NASA in =
terms
> of maintaining separation and merging projects/etc. There are quite a =
few
> lessons learned that I have been trying to share but that have =
seemingly not
> really been appreciated and that have been in my mind dismissed, =
rather than
> discussed, through this process.

I'd hardly say they've been dismissed.  This isn't about you, it's about =
what is best for the project.  You have one opinion, that, by the face =
of the votes, is in the minority.  It doesn't make the majority right =
and you wrong.  In fact, those in the majority are trying to answer your =
concerns and come up with a better suggestion.  This is in fact the =
process and it is how the ASF works.  This is one of the great things =
about the Lucene community.  We have real discussions about the issues.

-Grant=