lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Create Solr TLP
Date Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:37:25 GMT
My biggest de-merge argument is the loss of Uwe!! Who will handle Solr's sophisticated tokesteam
jsps and xml obscurities.

On Apr 26, 2011, at 5:28 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:

> Hi,
> Strong -1 to unmerge.
> Many of you know that I was originally against the merge, but once I saw the
> possibilities (especially refactoring the analysis stuff), I started to also
> actively support it. I helped together with lots of other
> previous-only-Lucene committers to move the svn together and rewrite parts
> of the build system. After that we started to move analyzers to one place,
> added Solr by factories for *all* Lucene analyzers available and vice versa
> opened Solr analyzers to Lucene users. We removed lots of deprecated code
> usage (which made Solr move from Lucene 2.9 to 3.0). This was especially the
> work of Lucene committers who originally developed the new analysis API.
> Solr had at this time not many active developers, so help from Lucene users
> was welcome. So at this time, the merge helped both projects.
> Problems started at that time, when some of us suggested to "remove"
> features from Solr and move it to Lucene Core, means faceting (I mentioned
> that first on a conference to the public, which disagreed some people),
> function queries, schema support, clustering, dismax. From my point of view
> as originally only a "Lucene Committer" is, that Solr was and is still
> somehow dominated by one person who is afraid of losing functionality in
> Solr that was originally developed by him and this could reduce the power of
> Solr on the market (yes, there is also a company behind, that mainly wants
> to sell consulting to Solr users [as this is of course easier to do], but
> that's just a side note).
> I think instead of splitting again, Lucene TLP should consider thinking
> about better communication between the committers, allow different opinions
> for Solr's later development and maybe vote a new PMC (as the current PMC
> was simply merged from Solr and Lucene, where conflicts are programmed).
> If the merged Lucene+Solr is not what the dominating person wants to have,
> it is free to fork Solr from Apache (yes it's open source and you can
> sell/provide a forked version to customers with only huper-duper features
> that separates from Lucene, but I think this is already done -
> LW-Enterprise). But if most committers here want to help to bring both
> Lucene+Solr to the top of search engines, they are free to do it at the ASF
> with discussion and also lots of code refactoring - we are using SVN, so we
> always have the track what was done. Reverting or not reverting is only
> political, nothing technical. And disagreement is also valid in an open
> source project, but disagreeing people should sometimes revise their opinion
> - this applies to a few more people here, I am also not always the best
> discussion partner (police is the executive... *g*).
> Uwe
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> eMail:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [] On Behalf Of Yonik
>> Seeley
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 8:50 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: [VOTE] Create Solr TLP
>> A single merged project works only when people are relatively on the same
>> page, and when people feel it's mutually beneficial.  Recent events make
> it
>> clear that that is no longer the case.
>> Improvements to Solr have been recently blocked and reverted on the
>> grounds that the new functionality was not immediately available to
> non-Solr
>> users.
>> This was obviously never part of the original idea (well actually - it was
>> considered but rejected as too onerous).  But the past doesn't matter as
>> much as the present - about how people chose to act and interpret things
>> today.
>> Some people warned us against merging at the start, and I guess it turns
> out
>> they were right.
>> I no longer feel it's in Solr's best interests to remain under the same
> PMC as
>> Lucene-Java, and I know some other committers who have said they feel like
>> Lucene got the short end of the stick.  But rather than arguing about
> who's
>> right (maybe both?) since enough of us feel it's no longer mutually
> beneficial,
>> we should stop fighting and just go our separate ways.
>> Please VOTE to create a new Apache Solr TLP.
>> Here's my +1
>> -Yonik

- Mark Miller

Lucene/Solr User Conference
May 25-26, San Francisco

View raw message