On Mar 12, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: > Here's what I didn't like. The vote was: > > * ambiguous > * something that the Solr devs tried to push through and bullied folks on > during discussion (those who originally had questions were persuaded that it > was the "right thing to do" by those in the PMC leadership).
It was Mike's proposal to begin with and he isn't a Solr committer. As I said in the email the delta of Lucene committers who are not Solr committers are all either +1 or 0 and they are the ones doing the work. Go look at the votes. As for persuasion, isn't that how discussions work? Both sides make there case and then people vote. > * not healthy for the project Clearly, you are in the minority on that view, especially given that the all of the most active Lucene committers are for it. There is still going to be Solr and still going to be Lucene. > * subject to VETO since at the very least it proposes code modifications, but > also because: No, it doesn't. No one has proposed any code mods. There is still going to be Solr and still going to be Lucene. Separate JARs. Separate WARs. You will likely see some code moved (analyzers to start), but you can veto those specific moves when the time comes if you don't think it makes sense.
