On Mar 14, 2010, at 12:28 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > Hi, > > Consider this just an email to clarify things for Otis (and maybe a few other > people). > > Are the following the main goals of the recent merge voting thread(s)? > * Make it easier for Solr to ride the Lucene trunk > * Make it easier for people to avoid committing new features to Solr when > they really belong to some lower level code - either Lucene core or some > Lucene module > > Is the only or main change being proposed that lucene-dev and solr-dev mode > to some common-dev (or lucene-dev)? > > If the above is correct, here is what I don't understand: > * Why can't Solr riding on Lucene trunk be achieved by getting Lucene trunk > build into Solr lib in svn on a daily/hourly basis?
I just don't see that working. > * Why can't existing Solr functionality that has been identified as "should > really have been committed to Lucene instead of Solr" be moved to Lucene over > the coming months? First up is analysis, I suspect. > * Why can't Solr developers be required to be subscribed to lucene-dev? They should. That's the immediate step going forward until the various infra gyrations are undertaken. > * Why can't Solr developers be required/urged to commit any new functionality > to Lucene if solr-dev and lucene-dev people think that's where it belongs? > i.e. communicate before committing - the same as "measure twice, cut once". Of course they will. This is how committing works on any and all projects anyway.
