lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Busch <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Create Solr TLP
Date Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:43:26 GMT
On 4/26/11 3:46 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> It really seems to come down to robert/simon and yonik being really opposed here. This
bubbles up every few weeks. I just don't know how to fix that - does anybody? I want to fix
things as much as anyone - but what now? We have hashed everything over and over.

I totally agree with Robert and Simon that it is currently very 
frustrating that moving code to Lucene is being veto'ed on.
They're investing time in realizing the modularization goals we had for 
the Lucene/Solr merge, but there are always roadblocks. We should really 
thank them for this effort, because it's very honorable work: making an 
existing feature available for more users.

I think, Yonik, that you ignored the concerns of other committers in 
SOLR-2272. It shouldn't be a surprise that this leads to frustration. If 
it's a goal of the Lucene/Solr project to have shareable modules for 
common code then in order to get a new feature committed discussions 
about where the code should live have to happen very early in the phase 
of a new feature. And then you need to scope the necessary development 
time accordingly.

It doesn't necessarily even have to take longer to develop a new feature 
as a shared module vs. one that only lives in Solr. What usually takes 
much longer is to develop it first in Solr, then after the release was 
made refactor it and move it to a module, with the burden of having to 
maintain backwards-compatibility with the original implementation.

It's a responsibility of every committer to eg. make sure that Solr 
tests pass when a new Lucene feature is developed. It should also be the 
responsibility to figure out early on where code should live. I can not 
emphasize this enough.

View raw message