lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)
Date Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:29:16 GMT
Hi Yonik,

IMO, this vote has not passed. A bullet of this proposal proposes code
modifications and this is subject to VETO per Apache guidelines:

Since that point is up for debate, I think we can get clarification on this
from the board at their next meeting, but I dispute calling the VOTE
"passed" until that time.

In the meanwhile there has been much community discussion and points made in
favor of each point of view over the past week. My recommendation is to sit
on this for at least a week, then revisit the issue with clear and concise
goals, and incremental pieces to vote on.


On 3/11/10 6:29 PM, "Yonik Seeley" <> wrote:

> Thanks everyone, this vote has passed.
> A bit more contentious of a PMC vote than usual, but the committer
> vote was clear.
> -Yonik
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Yonik Seeley <> wrote:
>> Apoligies in advance for calling yet another vote, but I just wanted
>> to make sure this was official.
>> Mike's second VOTE thread could probably technically stand on it's own
>> (since it included PMC votes), but given that I said in my previous
>> VOTE thread that I was just polling Lucene/Solr committers and would
>> call a second PMC vote, that may have acted to suppress PMC votes on
>> Mike's thread also.
>> Please vote for the proposal quoted below to merge lucene/solr development.
>> Here's my +1
>> -Yonik
>> Mike's call for a VOTE (amongst lucene/solr committers +11 to -1):
>> e_the_development_of_solr_lucene_take_2#22d7cd086d9c5cf0
>>> Subject: Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)
>>> A new vote, that slightly changes proposal from last vote (adding only
>>> that Lucene can cut a release even if Solr doesn't):
>>>  * Merging the dev lists into a single list.
>>>  * Merging committers.
>>>  * When any change is committed (to a module that "belongs to" Solr or
>>>    to Lucene), all tests must pass.
>>>  * Release details will be decided by dev community, but, Lucene may
>>>    release without Solr.
>>>  * Modulariize the sources: pull things out of Lucene's core (break
>>>    out query parser, move all core queries & analyzers under their
>>>    contrib counterparts), pull things out of Solr's core (analyzers,
>>>    queries).
>>> These things would not change:
>>>  * Besides modularizing (above), the source code would remain factored
>>>    into separate dirs/modules the way it is now.
>>>  * Issue tracking remains separate (SOLR-XXX and LUCENE-XXX
>>>    issues).
>>>  * User's lists remain separate.
>>>  * Web sites remain separate.
>>>  * Release artifacts/jars remain separate.

Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA

View raw message