On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it should be clarified, that those who are using Lucene would not be > affected at all by this proposal, other than they would probably get some > things from Solr that they wish they > had anyway (Analyzers, likely Faceting, etc). I would encourage people to go > read what Mike wrote again.
The thread was a little unclear to me as it seemed to be send to this list while it had been started already some time before. Your explanation seems reasonable to me Regards Ard >There would still be Lucene jars. There would still be Solr jars. All of >those third party projects would still build exactly as they do now, unless of >course they want to add new jars. > Most of the merging is behind the scenes, >like a single dev list for coordination. I would suspect in practice that >most Solr committers would still focus on Solr, but... > > What you would also be getting is less friction (and I don't mean that in a > negative way) about where things should go. The reason there is often > duplication of efforts is mainly due to the >arbitrary boundary put up by the > fact that most Solr committers are not Lucene committers. So, when a Solr > committer comes up w/ something that may belong in Lucene proper (an > >Analyzer is just one example) they don't bother to make the effort to put it > in Lucene, so Lucene loses out. > > -Grant >
