On Feb 28, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Michael Busch wrote: > I'm not very happy with this proposal. I certainly understand what is > being tried to achieve though. I'd like to see a tighter integration > and communication between Lucene core and SOLR too, but the proposed > requirements seem much too strict. For example, I think it's a good > idea for SOLR to ride on Lucene's trunk again. This will show > potential problems of API changes and new features in Lucene much more > quickly. It will also help SOLR to use new Lucene features much more quickly. > > However, I'm -1 for these points: > > * When a change it committed to Lucene, it must pass all Solr tests.
Not sure why more tests would be a negative. The Solr tests exercise quite a bit of Lucene functionality as well. -Grant
