Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of gsiasf@gmail.com designates
 209.85.218.217 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=d/l2B1g8owQbxLTwZVYuXP8a99UJHUF416pahLYfmsko1GiYYLU2Y/1E2cMqwXy6GA
         e1lIYiqpsVYD+vdJFrP7hv9/4oiAzrf9t/if3NmgppmHy+4B5RekBz4KOu22ZclLQTjH
         pJgF5l/ds8fxoQnXGox3iHoutKBbTDcYMsxP4=
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
From: Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <C7B54560.D812%Chris.A.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 11:23:43 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B07E70F8-63D4-40A6-9298-1143DC8D5D05@apache.org>
References: <C7B54560.D812%Chris.A.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov>
To: general@lucene.apache.org


On Mar 4, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:

>=20
> +1 again and this is also one of my main objections to the proposal as =
it
> stands. Let the community decide who the committers are, and let each
> community decide what version of software it depends on. I'm not =
convinced
> that they are the same communities for that matter, and statements =
made
> earlier about Solr being the biggest user of Lucene(-java) may be true =
from
> a Lucene ecosystem perspective, but I disagree it's true (or even =
provable
> for that matter) from an external perspective given Lucene(-java)'s
> widespread use predating Solr as an Apache project, and Lucene's =
infection
> into other communities (e.g., PHP with Zend, etc.)

So, when those projects donate themselves to Apache, we can manage them, =
until then what we are proposing would have absolutely no effect on =
them.  They'll still get their Lucene JARs just like they always do.  I =
don't hear anyone proposing to gut those projects.  The fact is, Solr is =
managed by the Lucene PMC and it is our responsibility to make sure we =
produce good software under the ASF model.  That doesn't mean we have to =
merge, but, there are a good chunk of committers and others who feel =
some improvement on the current situation is necessary.  Moreover, many =
people want what is in Solr, but don't ever work to keep it whole.  =46rom=
 a PMC perspective, that's not fair to Solr even if it benefits Lucene =
and is perfectly "legal" and vice versa, so as a PMC member I don't like =
that situation.  Furthermore, as a committer on both projects, I don't =
like the duplication of effort and I don't like having to choose between =
the two when I know that my changes would benefit both communities but =
am forced to do so solely on the arbitrary fact that way back in 2006 =
when CNET donated Solr they said "Let's make this a subproject" instead =
of saying "Let's make this a contrib/feature of Lucene".    I often =
choose Solr these days solely b/c it means I can get access to it sooner =
from an end use perspective and nothing else.

The fact is, the PMC is who releases software, not individual committers =
or even individual subprojects.  The fact that their is a Solr and a =
Lucene is almost an arbitrary distinction, at least in the early days.  =
Nowadays, it's obviously grown, but it still is the PMC that releases =
both.

-Grant=