lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Cutting <>
Subject Re: Q re merging dev MLs
Date Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:21:28 GMT
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> Didn't we see Hadoop do
> exactly the opposite?  Doug described it as code-base being too big,
> but I'd say the original list was also too high traffic (was split
> into common-, hdfs-, and mapreduce- I believe).

The intent is that eventually HDFS and MapReduce will evolve 
independently.  If a new MapReduce feature depends on a new HDFS 
feature, then MapReduce would have to wait until HDFS releases before it 
can release.  Over time the expectation is that this won't happen much. 
  MapReduce currently develops against a nightly "snapshot" build of 
HDFS and releases will be synchronized for a while yet, but it may 
someday switch to developing against released versions of HDFS.  So the 
direction there is the opposite of what's been proposed here: 
introducing layered project dependencies rather than reducing them. 
It's too soon to say how well that split will work, just as I think it's 
  difficult to guess how well merging Lucene and Solr will fare.  From 
experience, we know the downsides of Lucene and Solr being split, now we 
may have the opportunity to learn the downsides of being merged!


View raw message