lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dennis Kubes <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:22:55 GMT
Ok.  Thank you for your reply.  For me it puts everything down in one 
place.  I think the simple fact is we disagree on this and it looks like 
this is going through over objections.  I hope that it is a good thing 
for both projects and the concerns we have don't become a reality.


Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Dennis Kubes wrote:
>> Yes railroading.
>> Many people don't want this to occur.  More than just minus 2
> Only 2 committers on Lucene and Solr were against it.  Those are the people that do the
>> . Underlying concerns are not being addressed.  
> I don't follow.  We've talked up and down about it.  Sometimes every last issue can't
be addressed, but I think we've all worked reasonably hard to address them.  We've addressed
the release issue, we've addressed the duplication/poaching issue.
>> Vetos count.  
> No, they don't.  It's majority approval.
>> Ignoring that is ignoring how Apache operates.  
> No, it's not.  Nobody is ignoring anything.  There are some valid concerns.  I think
they will be addressed by all of us being vigilant.  I have plenty of Lucene only projects
in my stable, as do most other Solr committers as well as all of the current Lucene committers.
 Nobody here wants Lucene to be consumed by Solr and HTTP server to be rammed down their throats.
> Please remember that this isn't just Solr committers who want this.  Most of the people
who do the daily lifting on Lucene who are not Solr committers (Michael, Robert, Uwe is +0)
are for it as well.
>> Merging projects is definitely a code change.  Getting around it by saying this is
a goal is fundamentally wrong.
>> 1) What prevents functionality be moved over into Lucene within the current project
structure?  Nothing, so why are we even discussing this.
>> 2) Why is Solr getting special treatment?  Because there is a lot of committer overlap?
 Should I propose to merge Nutch in too, lets just have one big project, no distinctions.
> I have no problem with you proposing to bring in Nutch's overlap.  The fact is, the Board
doesn't like subprojects anyway and we are likely headed for some consolidation/spinning out
anyway (see the December Board Minutes).  Mahout is going after 0.3 is out.  I could totally
see spinning out the crawling stuff from Nutch and taking the good bits of Lucene in there
into java-dev.  (We should be working together on that stuff anyway as we all end up writing
the same code and the solution in the end will be better.)  But that wasn't what this discussion
was about.  If you can convince all of the committers in Nutch to go for it and then convince
all the Lucene committers as well, then go for it.  I'm certainly not going to force it, as
that is up to the Nutch community.
> At any rate, as Otis said, "it's just software".  If it doesn't work, we can split back
>> 3) Why the big push here to blur project responsibilities? Idk, I keep wondering
that myself.
> Please read the thread.  The arguments have been made over and over.  There is still
going to be a set of Lucene JARs and there is still going to be Solr JARs.  IDK why it is
such a big deal right back when most everyone who actually does the coding on the two projects
is for it.

View raw message