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 ted.dunning@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.160.48 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type;
        b=JjwTGv3BgQg6idQKpA+5htjCyV2C6igFL8YZvpO6A9dOWNLhJUZC5n+zK07fPfI3Yn
         XKZXTyVQtUHUKYBJ/9UymsuV4Nn+1nhprkIDrbem4ZrnuMQ0zEzu7JgEiggmNSJQ2Wey
         toj2UKbt7lxUS34i5lzSsbtF0GWUNTbrVAFhE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1003040933270.23212@radix.cryptio.net>
References: <c68e39171003031442i222fa450r16a4b38b21fc01f1@mail.gmail.com>
	<3b5f72031003031548v29cdf72ct62d3c3d3cd2a6c0@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8EF6B9.9080001@gmail.com> <4B8EF828.3080903@gmail.com>
	<4B8F01AE.8070609@gmail.com> <4B8F08A1.6070200@gmail.com>
	<c68e39171003031800w24334760g20c060f7cb112120@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B8F2546.6040505@gmail.com> <004201cabb6a$f6698b40$e33ca1c0$@de>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1003040933270.23212@radix.cryptio.net>
From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:50:58 -0800
Message-ID: <c7d45fc71003040950h336989dl12159c3909aadf62@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd11310fe13e40480fd3e79

--000e0cd11310fe13e40480fd3e79
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Extending this with a few more specific steps:

a) merge dev list and committers

b) have lucene build trigger solr build and test

c) have lucene release trigger solr release shortly afterwards

d) completely synchronize builds

If these steps (as steps, not as a bundle) are what the proposal really is
about, then it might win over some of the negative votes.  Surely there is
value in the first two steps and little controversy.  Surely also (c) is in
the hands of the solr-focused devs and would be a natural outgrowth of (b).
If (d) winds up in the far future because people are happy, then how can
that be objectionable.

A phrase I haven't heard yet is "progress, not perfection".    I thought
that was the Lucene development motto.   Can't it be applied here?


On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Chris Hostetter <hossman_lucene@fucit.org>wrote:

> Why don't we just start by attempting to have a common dev list and
> merging committers, in the hopes that it will promote better communication
> about features up and down the stack, and better bug
> fixing/refactoring/modularization -- then see if that leads us to a point
> where it makes sense to more tightly couple the build systems and
> releases?
>


-- 
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve

--000e0cd11310fe13e40480fd3e79--