I think it's Solr rather than SOLR. :-) A little birdy told me so...
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Mark Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/28/2010 12:52 PM, Michael Busch wrote: >> >> ... I think it's a good >> idea for SOLR to ride on Lucene's trunk again... >> However, I'm -1 for these points: >> >> * When a change it committed to Lucene, it must pass all Solr tests. >> * Release both at once. >> >> > > These are huge reasons why we *don't* want SOLR to ride on Lucene's trunk > anymore. > > bq. but we have to ask why they weren't added to Lucene in the first place. > > Because the two communities are fairly separate in a lot of ways. This is > one of the things a potential merge would solve. We can say that the > projects should communicate more all we look - the history of saying such > things implies there will be no changes though. > > I'm still +0 here, but I'm starting to lean towards merge just sitting here > disagreeing with everyone arguing against :) > > Solr is actually part of the project "Lucene" along with Lucene-Java. The > divide now is actually almost unnatural considering how things > are organized. > > To those arguing that this would make Solr a first class citizen of Lucene > over other search solutions that use Lucene, that actually already is the > case, and the way things are setup, it should be. Solr is part of the Lucene > project. Other Lucene search engines are not. That doesn't mean we shouldn't > consider Lucene changes in the context of all the projects that may use it, > but Solr already is a first class citizen. Its not just some project using > Lucene - its *the* Lucene project's Search Server. Lucene devs *should* > consider Solr when developing on Lucene Java - they are the same project - > Lucene. > > -- > - Mark > > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > >
