lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Hostetter <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Create Solr TLP
Date Fri, 29 Apr 2011 04:18:54 GMT

I've been sick the last 48 hours, and didn't really have the energy to 
read all my email, even as i saw what look like some seriously omonious 
fucking threads grow and grow.

Trying to catch up now, I'm somewhat at a loss ... my capacity (and 
willingness) to wade in and aggresively diffuse petty disagreements seems 
to be failing me in my advanced age.

Fortunately this thread seems to have died out, and a new more positive 
thread is taking shape on the dev list, and that seems to be the one 
salvation of what strikes me as being the ugglesist 48 hours i have ever 
seen in this community.

For the record...

: Subject: [VOTE] Create Solr TLP


I initially voted against merged lucene/solr development last year, 
because even though i liked the *idea* i thought the entire "vote" was 
vague, non-specific, and targeted a "goal" of more integrated development 
w/o really adressing what kind of process we (as a community) would use to 
get there.

Guess what ladies and gentlemen:  This is that process.  

It's messy, and it's ugly, and it involves a lot of opinions and 
disagreements, and egos, and a lot of hashing shit out.

I don't regret that we merged dev, and I don't think we should 
"un-merge" -- you can't put the genie back in the bottle, and i wouldn't 
want to if we could -- because i think merging helped us make a lot of 
great progress, and we need to keep moving foward.

Lastly, because i don't think they can be stated enough, i would like to 
repeat the most insightful comments i saw in this thread.  (the wisdom 
in these particular comments is really what kept me going enough to read 
all the way through w/o giving up and going to bed)...

: pretty silly.  How can anyone seriously say that refactoring to promote
: re-use is bad?  How can somebody veto a code contribution that adds
: important and useful capabilities?


: Another thing to keep in mind is that Solr can be considered not just "an
: application that uses Lucene", but rather the *ideal* application layer for
: Lucene. Solr is basically an awesome example of what Lucene can be used for
: in an application. Every feature that Lucene supports, should be available
: through Solr. The opposite (that every Solr feature should be available via
: Lucene) depends on the feature and can't be stated as a general rule.

: Could we all please try to be less stubborn and accusing and figure this out?
: Obviously things like vetoing refactorings to move code into Lucene is very
: counterproductive. But also Solr progress shouldn't suffer.
: Hanging out with you guys at Apachecons always felt to me like we were all
: good friends. Reading these discussions makes me think we can't stand each
: other. Let's stop this passive-aggressive silliness and find a good solution.


View raw message