[VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
126 messages Options
1234 ... 7
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Yonik Seeley
Apoligies in advance for calling yet another vote, but I just wanted
to make sure this was official.
Mike's second VOTE thread could probably technically stand on it's own
(since it included PMC votes), but given that I said in my previous
VOTE thread that I was just polling Lucene/Solr committers and would
call a second PMC vote, that may have acted to suppress PMC votes on
Mike's thread also.

Please vote for the proposal quoted below to merge lucene/solr development.
Here's my +1

-Yonik

Mike's call for a VOTE (amongst lucene/solr committers +11 to -1):
http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/a400ffe62ae21aca/vote_merge_the_development_of_solr_lucene_take_2#22d7cd086d9c5cf0

> Subject: Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)
> A new vote, that slightly changes proposal from last vote (adding only
> that Lucene can cut a release even if Solr doesn't):
>
>  * Merging the dev lists into a single list.
>
>  * Merging committers.
>
>  * When any change is committed (to a module that "belongs to" Solr or
>    to Lucene), all tests must pass.
>
>  * Release details will be decided by dev community, but, Lucene may
>    release without Solr.
>
>  * Modulariize the sources: pull things out of Lucene's core (break
>    out query parser, move all core queries & analyzers under their
>    contrib counterparts), pull things out of Solr's core (analyzers,
>    queries).
>
> These things would not change:
>
>  * Besides modularizing (above), the source code would remain factored
>    into separate dirs/modules the way it is now.
>
>  * Issue tracking remains separate (SOLR-XXX and LUCENE-XXX
>    issues).
>
>  * User's lists remain separate.
>
>  * Web sites remain separate.
>
>  * Release artifacts/jars remain separate.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Mark Miller-3
+1

This tally is not official, but here is my count of how people voted on
this merge. A couple people that voted +1 on the first vote did not take
the time to vote again. I've counted them as +1 as I assume they did not
change their mind. Take that for what you will. This is not an official
tally of the vote. If you think your counted wrong, fell free to correct
me. In my mind, its hard to believe that all of these people on the
front lines of Lucene/Solr development don't know what they are doing in
regards to the project.

Bill Au : +1
Doug Cutting
Otis Gospodnetić : +1
Erik Hatcher
Chris Hostetter : -1
Grant Ingersoll : +1
Mike Klaas
Shalin Shekhar Mangar : +1
Ryan McKinley : +1
Mark Miller : +1
Noble Paul : +1
Yonik Seeley : +1
Koji Sekiguchi : +1
Michael Busch : +1
Doron Cohen
Mike McCandless : +1
Bernhard Messer
Robert Muir : +1
Uwe Schindler : +1
Wolfgang Hoschek
Patrick O'Leary
Andi Vajda : +1
Karl Wettin
Simon Willnauer : +1


On 03/08/2010 09:11 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:

> Apoligies in advance for calling yet another vote, but I just wanted
> to make sure this was official.
> Mike's second VOTE thread could probably technically stand on it's own
> (since it included PMC votes), but given that I said in my previous
> VOTE thread that I was just polling Lucene/Solr committers and would
> call a second PMC vote, that may have acted to suppress PMC votes on
> Mike's thread also.
>
> Please vote for the proposal quoted below to merge lucene/solr development.
> Here's my +1
>
> -Yonik
>
> Mike's call for a VOTE (amongst lucene/solr committers +11 to -1):
> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/a400ffe62ae21aca/vote_merge_the_development_of_solr_lucene_take_2#22d7cd086d9c5cf0
>    
>> Subject: Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)
>> A new vote, that slightly changes proposal from last vote (adding only
>> that Lucene can cut a release even if Solr doesn't):
>>
>>   * Merging the dev lists into a single list.
>>
>>   * Merging committers.
>>
>>   * When any change is committed (to a module that "belongs to" Solr or
>>     to Lucene), all tests must pass.
>>
>>   * Release details will be decided by dev community, but, Lucene may
>>     release without Solr.
>>
>>   * Modulariize the sources: pull things out of Lucene's core (break
>>     out query parser, move all core queries&  analyzers under their
>>     contrib counterparts), pull things out of Solr's core (analyzers,
>>     queries).
>>
>> These things would not change:
>>
>>   * Besides modularizing (above), the source code would remain factored
>>     into separate dirs/modules the way it is now.
>>
>>   * Issue tracking remains separate (SOLR-XXX and LUCENE-XXX
>>     issues).
>>
>>   * User's lists remain separate.
>>
>>   * Web sites remain separate.
>>
>>   * Release artifacts/jars remain separate.
>>      


--
- Mark

http://www.lucidimagination.com



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
In reply to this post by Yonik Seeley
For completeness from the VOTE on private@

PMC votes:
========================
+1

Mark Miller
Michael McCandless
Yonik Seely
Ryan McKinley

-0

Doug Cutting

-1

Dennis Kubes
Scott Ganyo
Chris Mattmann

Cheers,
Chris



On 3/8/10 6:11 PM, "Yonik Seeley" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Apoligies in advance for calling yet another vote, but I just wanted
to make sure this was official.
Mike's second VOTE thread could probably technically stand on it's own
(since it included PMC votes), but given that I said in my previous
VOTE thread that I was just polling Lucene/Solr committers and would
call a second PMC vote, that may have acted to suppress PMC votes on
Mike's thread also.

Please vote for the proposal quoted below to merge lucene/solr development.
Here's my +1

-Yonik

Mike's call for a VOTE (amongst lucene/solr committers +11 to -1):
http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/a400ffe62ae21aca/vote_merge_the_development_of_solr_lucene_take_2#22d7cd086d9c5cf0

> Subject: Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)
> A new vote, that slightly changes proposal from last vote (adding only
> that Lucene can cut a release even if Solr doesn't):
>
>  * Merging the dev lists into a single list.
>
>  * Merging committers.
>
>  * When any change is committed (to a module that "belongs to" Solr or
>    to Lucene), all tests must pass.
>
>  * Release details will be decided by dev community, but, Lucene may
>    release without Solr.
>
>  * Modulariize the sources: pull things out of Lucene's core (break
>    out query parser, move all core queries & analyzers under their
>    contrib counterparts), pull things out of Solr's core (analyzers,
>    queries).
>
> These things would not change:
>
>  * Besides modularizing (above), the source code would remain factored
>    into separate dirs/modules the way it is now.
>
>  * Issue tracking remains separate (SOLR-XXX and LUCENE-XXX
>    issues).
>
>  * User's lists remain separate.
>
>  * Web sites remain separate.
>
>  * Release artifacts/jars remain separate.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [hidden email]
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Yonik Seeley
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> For completeness from the VOTE on private@

It's called private for a reason.

-Yonik
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
Yet the information we were voting on is public information really and this doesn't really count as "sensitive" IMO. I'd venture to guess not all the PMC is subscribed to general@, and may miss this vote, so it's important their votes be counted.

Chris



On 3/8/10 6:23 PM, "Yonik Seeley" <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> For completeness from the VOTE on private@

It's called private for a reason.

-Yonik



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [hidden email]
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Mark Miller-3
On 03/08/2010 09:32 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Yet the information we were voting on is public information really and this doesn't really count as "sensitive" IMO.
Any thing I send to private@, I kind of count on not being public. I'd
rather you not decide that for me. In this case, I'm not terribly upset
that my private vote has gotten out - but again, I'd prefer that you
didn't make that call for me. I gave reasons for me vote, and you have
taken the liberty of taking my vote apart from them - I don't like that
either.

> I'd venture to guess not all the PMC is subscribed to general@, and may miss this vote, so it's important their votes be counted.
>    
If you concerned about this, the best way to handle it is to send them a
note. Or send a followup to private@ with a reminder
that a vote is happening on general@. Get permission to take their
private votes public for them. Anything would be better than making our
private communications public - whether we decided the vote should have
been done in public or not.

> Chris
>
>
>
> On 3/8/10 6:23 PM, "Yonik Seeley"<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> <[hidden email]>  wrote:
>    
>> For completeness from the VOTE on private@
>>      
> It's called private for a reason.
>
> -Yonik
>
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: [hidden email]
> WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>    


--
- Mark

http://www.lucidimagination.com



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Michael Busch
In reply to this post by Yonik Seeley
+0

I know I had voted +1 in the second vote, because I was happy about the
fact that Lucene can release w/o Solr. But I spent more time thinking
about this last weekend. I still don't really WANT this change, but can
live with the current proposal. Hence, a +0 in this "official" vote
summarizes probably more accurately how I feel about it.

Question: Is it sufficient to have more +1s than -1s for this vote to
pass? I thought for votes as significant as this one a -1 veto is a
showstopper?

  Michael

On 3/8/10 6:11 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:

> Apoligies in advance for calling yet another vote, but I just wanted
> to make sure this was official.
> Mike's second VOTE thread could probably technically stand on it's own
> (since it included PMC votes), but given that I said in my previous
> VOTE thread that I was just polling Lucene/Solr committers and would
> call a second PMC vote, that may have acted to suppress PMC votes on
> Mike's thread also.
>
> Please vote for the proposal quoted below to merge lucene/solr development.
> Here's my +1
>
> -Yonik
>
> Mike's call for a VOTE (amongst lucene/solr committers +11 to -1):
> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/a400ffe62ae21aca/vote_merge_the_development_of_solr_lucene_take_2#22d7cd086d9c5cf0
>    
>> Subject: Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)
>> A new vote, that slightly changes proposal from last vote (adding only
>> that Lucene can cut a release even if Solr doesn't):
>>
>>   * Merging the dev lists into a single list.
>>
>>   * Merging committers.
>>
>>   * When any change is committed (to a module that "belongs to" Solr or
>>     to Lucene), all tests must pass.
>>
>>   * Release details will be decided by dev community, but, Lucene may
>>     release without Solr.
>>
>>   * Modulariize the sources: pull things out of Lucene's core (break
>>     out query parser, move all core queries&  analyzers under their
>>     contrib counterparts), pull things out of Solr's core (analyzers,
>>     queries).
>>
>> These things would not change:
>>
>>   * Besides modularizing (above), the source code would remain factored
>>     into separate dirs/modules the way it is now.
>>
>>   * Issue tracking remains separate (SOLR-XXX and LUCENE-XXX
>>     issues).
>>
>>   * User's lists remain separate.
>>
>>   * Web sites remain separate.
>>
>>   * Release artifacts/jars remain separate.
>>      
>    

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
In reply to this post by Mark Miller-3
>> Yet the information we were voting on is public information really and this
>> doesn't really count as "sensitive" IMO.
> Any thing I send to private@, I kind of count on not being public. I'd
> rather you not decide that for me. In this case, I'm not terribly upset
> that my private vote has gotten out - but again, I'd prefer that you
> didn't make that call for me. I gave reasons for me vote, and you have
> taken the liberty of taking my vote apart from them - I don't like that
> either.

If you're unhappy I've passed along your private vote, sorry about that. I
think that the natural interpretation of the comments (and subsequent
actions) is that this is a vote best held in public, so I imagined since no
one's vote really changed from the public version we've held 2 times already
(nor did the rationale seemingly) it was a liberty to take. In any case,
sorry to take your liberty away from providing your own private vote, won't
happen again.

>
>> I'd venture to guess not all the PMC is subscribed to general@, and may miss
>> this vote, so it's important their votes be counted.
>>  
> If you concerned about this, the best way to handle it is to send them a
> note. Or send a followup to private@ with a reminder
> that a vote is happening on general@.

That's one way, sure. If it's not a sensitive matter, it's typical Apache
policy for the PMC to conduct as much non-sensitive business in public as
possible. Passing along non-sensitive information for completeness on a VOTE
with impact is a just cause IMO. But, everyone is free to their own
interpretation and those other folks can feel free to re-chime in with their
votes (I've CC'ed them on this message -- please reply to general@).

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [hidden email]
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Yonik Seeley
In reply to this post by Michael Busch
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Michael Busch <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Question: Is it sufficient to have more +1s than -1s for this vote to pass?
3 +1s and more +1s than -1s is sufficient.

> I thought for votes as significant as this one a -1 veto is a showstopper?
It's not really tied to significance - releases, acceptance to
incubate, etc, all require more +1s than -1s.

-Yonik
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Mark Miller-3
In reply to this post by Michael Busch

On 03/08/2010 09:49 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
>
> Question: Is it sufficient to have more +1s than -1s for this vote to
> pass? I thought for votes as significant as this one a -1 veto is a
> showstopper?
>

Hey Michael - its a good question. And I think the answer is, this is
not a vote that can be vetoed with a single -1. Though I'm not sure its
completely clear.

Quoting the Apache page on voting:

There are essentially three types of vote:

   1. Code modifications,
   2. Package releases
   3. Procedural

Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
unless otherwise stated.

Likewise, package release cannot be vetoed. Only Code modifications with
a valid technical reason can be vetoed.

So from what I gather, this is closest to procedural and would be
majority. But that's not entirely clear. But it does appear that Apache
favors for majority for this type of thing (or enough +1's), and saves
vetoes for code changes.

--
- Mark


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Mark Miller-3
In reply to this post by Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
On 03/08/2010 09:50 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
> won't
> happen again.
>    

Thanks - I'm obviously not terribly upset about it, but I'd like to
feel  that things I send to private won't go public without me making it
so, since I will write those emails thinking such.

--
- Mark





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
Hey Mark,

I hear ya on that. No worries.

Cheers,
Chris



On 3/8/10 6:58 PM, "Mark Miller" <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 03/08/2010 09:50 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
> won't
> happen again.
>

Thanks - I'm obviously not terribly upset about it, but I'd like to
feel  that things I send to private won't go public without me making it
so, since I will write those emails thinking such.

--
- Mark








++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [hidden email]
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
In reply to this post by Michael Busch
Hi Michael,

It¹s a good question. I think each side of the fence on this issue has their
own interpretation. Here¹s the Apache page on voting:

http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

I think parts of Mike¹s 2nd proposal [1] (what we¹re voting on) include
elements that are procedural:

 * Merging the dev lists into a single list.
 * Release details will be decided by dev community, but, Lucene may
   release without Solr. (though I¹m not sure why this is included, b/c it¹s
the way that the communities work now?)

But others aren¹t:

 * Merging committers.


And these relate directly to code and will effect change:

 * When any change is committed (to a module that "belongs to" Solr or
   to Lucene), all tests must pass.
 * Modulariize the sources: pull things out of Lucene's core (break
   out query parser, move all core queries & analyzers under their
   contrib counterparts), pull things out of Solr's core (analyzers,
   queries).

So, there are parts of this proposal that I believe VETO does in fact apply
to.

Cheers,
Chris

[1] http://bit.ly/bUJAee

On 3/8/10 6:49 PM, "Michael Busch" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Question: Is it sufficient to have more +1s than -1s for this vote to
> pass? I thought for votes as significant as this one a -1 veto is a
> showstopper?


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [hidden email]
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

pjaol
In reply to this post by Yonik Seeley
Hmm, Right now I consider Solr too far from lucene to see a merge succeed,
if you asked me 2 years ago I would have said merge merge merge.

I also think Solr hasn't worked out a good roadmap or schedule for releases,
which I'm sure will impact the lucene world.
So

-1



On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Yonik Seeley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Apoligies in advance for calling yet another vote, but I just wanted
> to make sure this was official.
> Mike's second VOTE thread could probably technically stand on it's own
> (since it included PMC votes), but given that I said in my previous
> VOTE thread that I was just polling Lucene/Solr committers and would
> call a second PMC vote, that may have acted to suppress PMC votes on
> Mike's thread also.
>
> Please vote for the proposal quoted below to merge lucene/solr development.
> Here's my +1
>
> -Yonik
>
> Mike's call for a VOTE (amongst lucene/solr committers +11 to -1):
>
> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/a400ffe62ae21aca/vote_merge_the_development_of_solr_lucene_take_2#22d7cd086d9c5cf0
> > Subject: Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)
> > A new vote, that slightly changes proposal from last vote (adding only
> > that Lucene can cut a release even if Solr doesn't):
> >
> >  * Merging the dev lists into a single list.
> >
> >  * Merging committers.
> >
> >  * When any change is committed (to a module that "belongs to" Solr or
> >    to Lucene), all tests must pass.
> >
> >  * Release details will be decided by dev community, but, Lucene may
> >    release without Solr.
> >
> >  * Modulariize the sources: pull things out of Lucene's core (break
> >    out query parser, move all core queries & analyzers under their
> >    contrib counterparts), pull things out of Solr's core (analyzers,
> >    queries).
> >
> > These things would not change:
> >
> >  * Besides modularizing (above), the source code would remain factored
> >    into separate dirs/modules the way it is now.
> >
> >  * Issue tracking remains separate (SOLR-XXX and LUCENE-XXX
> >    issues).
> >
> >  * User's lists remain separate.
> >
> >  * Web sites remain separate.
> >
> >  * Release artifacts/jars remain separate.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Ian Holsman (Lists)
In reply to this post by Yonik Seeley
you should x-post this on solr-dev.

(not a committer so no vote for me)
On 3/9/10 1:11 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:

> Apoligies in advance for calling yet another vote, but I just wanted
> to make sure this was official.
> Mike's second VOTE thread could probably technically stand on it's own
> (since it included PMC votes), but given that I said in my previous
> VOTE thread that I was just polling Lucene/Solr committers and would
> call a second PMC vote, that may have acted to suppress PMC votes on
> Mike's thread also.
>
> Please vote for the proposal quoted below to merge lucene/solr development.
> Here's my +1
>
> -Yonik
>
> Mike's call for a VOTE (amongst lucene/solr committers +11 to -1):
> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/a400ffe62ae21aca/vote_merge_the_development_of_solr_lucene_take_2#22d7cd086d9c5cf0
>    
>> Subject: Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)
>> A new vote, that slightly changes proposal from last vote (adding only
>> that Lucene can cut a release even if Solr doesn't):
>>
>>   * Merging the dev lists into a single list.
>>
>>   * Merging committers.
>>
>>   * When any change is committed (to a module that "belongs to" Solr or
>>     to Lucene), all tests must pass.
>>
>>   * Release details will be decided by dev community, but, Lucene may
>>     release without Solr.
>>
>>   * Modulariize the sources: pull things out of Lucene's core (break
>>     out query parser, move all core queries&  analyzers under their
>>     contrib counterparts), pull things out of Solr's core (analyzers,
>>     queries).
>>
>> These things would not change:
>>
>>   * Besides modularizing (above), the source code would remain factored
>>     into separate dirs/modules the way it is now.
>>
>>   * Issue tracking remains separate (SOLR-XXX and LUCENE-XXX
>>     issues).
>>
>>   * User's lists remain separate.
>>
>>   * Web sites remain separate.
>>
>>   * Release artifacts/jars remain separate.
>>      
>    

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Mark Miller-3
I alerted java-dev and solr-dev of the committer vote - we are now onto
a PMC vote.

On 03/08/2010 10:18 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:

> you should x-post this on solr-dev.
>
> (not a committer so no vote for me)
> On 3/9/10 1:11 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>> Apoligies in advance for calling yet another vote, but I just wanted
>> to make sure this was official.
>> Mike's second VOTE thread could probably technically stand on it's own
>> (since it included PMC votes), but given that I said in my previous
>> VOTE thread that I was just polling Lucene/Solr committers and would
>> call a second PMC vote, that may have acted to suppress PMC votes on
>> Mike's thread also.
>>
>> Please vote for the proposal quoted below to merge lucene/solr
>> development.
>> Here's my +1
>>
>> -Yonik
>>
>> Mike's call for a VOTE (amongst lucene/solr committers +11 to -1):
>> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/a400ffe62ae21aca/vote_merge_the_development_of_solr_lucene_take_2#22d7cd086d9c5cf0 
>>
>>> Subject: Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)
>>> A new vote, that slightly changes proposal from last vote (adding only
>>> that Lucene can cut a release even if Solr doesn't):
>>>
>>>   * Merging the dev lists into a single list.
>>>
>>>   * Merging committers.
>>>
>>>   * When any change is committed (to a module that "belongs to" Solr or
>>>     to Lucene), all tests must pass.
>>>
>>>   * Release details will be decided by dev community, but, Lucene may
>>>     release without Solr.
>>>
>>>   * Modulariize the sources: pull things out of Lucene's core (break
>>>     out query parser, move all core queries&  analyzers under their
>>>     contrib counterparts), pull things out of Solr's core (analyzers,
>>>     queries).
>>>
>>> These things would not change:
>>>
>>>   * Besides modularizing (above), the source code would remain factored
>>>     into separate dirs/modules the way it is now.
>>>
>>>   * Issue tracking remains separate (SOLR-XXX and LUCENE-XXX
>>>     issues).
>>>
>>>   * User's lists remain separate.
>>>
>>>   * Web sites remain separate.
>>>
>>>   * Release artifacts/jars remain separate.
>


--
- Mark

http://www.lucidimagination.com



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Grant Ingersoll-2
In reply to this post by Yonik Seeley
I don't think any of it's a showstopper, but at the same time we should try to address the concerns of those who voted -1 and see if a better solution can be developed so that they hopefully can become at least a 0 if not a +1.  The whole point of the move is to build a stronger community, not a weaker one.  At the same time, we should also remember that a large part of the motivation for this move comes from people wanting things that are in Solr to be moved to Lucene in the first place (Analyzers, Faceting, Function Queries, Open Bit Set, Spatial, Schema to name a few past and present ones;  these constitute a lot of Solr's functionality, BTW.)  If there are baby steps that bring the two together, we should consider them.  Personally, I think the proposal contains said baby steps, but perhaps some would prefer smaller ones to begin with so they should outline them.

It should also be noted that a good chunk of the Solr committers are already Lucene committers, and of the remaining there are: Bill Au, Mike Klaas, Ryan McKinley, Shalin and Noble.  Mike has been inactive for quite some time (and has elected to go emeritus even though it's not marked on the page) and and Ryan, Shalin and Noble already contribute to Lucene in various parts (AFAICT), so to me it's not a big stretch to say bring them into the fold.  I haven't tracked Bill's involvement, but I also know Bill and trust he knows what it means to be a committer, i.e. he knows as much what not to touch as what to touch.  Of course, we can do a separate vote on that if that helps satisfy Chris' issue on the committers.  

In the end, for me anyway, the current separation hurts Lucene a good deal as much as it hurts Solr, if not more.  Likewise, I wish some of the Nutch committers would speak up, as I'm sure there are some pieces of Nutch that are "core" too, but for a lack of visibility down lower in Lucene committer wise, especially as Nutch as looking to refactor into more components.  Obviously not the crawling stuff, but perhaps some of Nutch's analyzer and low level Lucene stuff would make sense to be pushed lower in the stack.

In the end, I'm still +1 on the current move.  We can consider the other moves separately if the community wishes.


On Mar 8, 2010, at 9:52 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Michael Busch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Question: Is it sufficient to have more +1s than -1s for this vote to pass?
> 3 +1s and more +1s than -1s is sufficient.
>
>> I thought for votes as significant as this one a -1 veto is a showstopper?
> It's not really tied to significance - releases, acceptance to
> incubate, etc, all require more +1s than -1s.
>
> -Yonik


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Michael Busch
On 3/8/10 8:24 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> I don't think any of it's a showstopper,

I'm surprised here after reading the Apache voting page. This proposal
contains points that involve code restructurings.

> but at the same time we should try to address the concerns of those who voted -1 and see if a better solution can be developed so that they hopefully can become at least a 0 if not a +1.  The whole point of the move is to build a stronger community, not a weaker one.
>    

Yes I totally agree and thanks for saying that, Grant.  We should try to
make a decision so that the general mood in this community is good at
the end and that everyone considers the outcome as beneficial for the
whole project. This means that both sides have to be open for compromises.

  Michael
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Mark Miller-3
On 03/09/2010 12:14 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
> On 3/8/10 8:24 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> I don't think any of it's a showstopper,
>
> I'm surprised here after reading the Apache voting page. This proposal
> contains points that involve code restructurings.


The veto is reserved for "code modifications" not reorganizations of
development. And the veto requires a valid technical reason against a
specific code change.

Also, we have decided on no code restructurings - the hope is to allow
them (and in the past you have championed some of the ones we hope to
see), but there are no restructurings that are part of the vote. The
change says nothing about what will happen regarding the code - the
community would decide that as we go. If you have to pick one of the 3
buckets, this is procedural.

http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

--
- Mark




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] merge lucene/solr development (take 3)

Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
On 3/8/10 9:26 PM, "Mark Miller" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Also, we have decided on no code restructurings - the hope is to allow
> them (and in the past you have championed some of the ones we hope to
> see), but there are no restructurings that are part of the vote.

Ummm, that's not true.

Mike's last proposal listed these points:

 * When any change is committed (to a module that "belongs to" Solr or
   to Lucene), all tests must pass.
 * Modulariize the sources: pull things out of Lucene's core (break
   out query parser, move all core queries & analyzers under their
   contrib counterparts), pull things out of Solr's core (analyzers,
   queries).

If those don't have to do with code changes, then I'm not sure what they are
and would appreciate clarification.

Cheers,
Chris


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [hidden email]
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


1234 ... 7