lucene and solr trunk

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
58 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lucene and solr trunk

Mark Miller-3
On 03/16/2010 10:09 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Michael Busch<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>    
>> Also, we're in review-and-commit process, not commit-and-review.  Changes have to be
>> proposed, discussed and ideally attached to jira as patches first.
>>      
> Correction, just for the sake of avoiding future confusion (i.e. I'm
> not making any point about this thread):
>
> Lucene and Solr have always officially been CTR.
> For trunk, we normally use a bit of informal lazy consensus for
> anything big, hard, or that might be controvertial... but we are not
> officially RTC.
>
> -Yonik
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>    

In any case, this is a branch. People really want to enforce RTC on a
branch??? Even if that was our official process on trunk (which I agree
it has not been) that's not how the flex branch worked. That's not how
the solr_cloud branch worked. That's not how other previous branches
have worked.

IMO - anyone should be able to create a branch for anything - to play
around with whatever they want. We should encourage this. Branches are
good. And they take up little space.


Branch changes have to be proposed, discussed, and attached to JIRA?
Uggg - I certainly hope not.

Branches should be considered replacements for huge unwieldy patches. Do
I have to propose and discuss before I put up a patch?

--
- Mark

http://www.lucidimagination.com




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lucene and solr trunk

Yonik Seeley-2
In reply to this post by Michael McCandless-2
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Michael McCandless
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think it like the 1st option best (lucene moves as subdir to solr's
> current trunk SVN path), but I don't feel strongly.
>
> This'd mean one could simply checkout lucene alone and do everything
> you can do today.
>
> But if you check out solr, you also get a full checkout of lucene, and
> solr's build.xml will go and build lucene, copy over its jars to its
> lib folder, and then do everything it currently does.
>
> I think?
>
> This small step is not much change over what we have today -- the code
> simply moves, unchanged, except for some fixes to solr's build.xml to
> go and build its lucene subdir first.

Huh - I was leaning more toward putting solr under lucene because I
thought that might be more acceptable to the lucene folks (actually,
now lucene/solr folks) than vice-versa.

But your points make perfect sense.

> The bigger stuff, ideas on modules like renaming contrib->modules,
> consolidating all analyzers, queries, queryparsers, highlighters, all
> comes later.

+1

-Yonik

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lucene and solr trunk

Grant Ingersoll-2
In reply to this post by Mark Miller-3

On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Mark Miller wrote:

> On 03/16/2010 10:09 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Michael Busch<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>> Also, we're in review-and-commit process, not commit-and-review.  Changes have to be
>>> proposed, discussed and ideally attached to jira as patches first.
>>>
>> Correction, just for the sake of avoiding future confusion (i.e. I'm
>> not making any point about this thread):
>>
>> Lucene and Solr have always officially been CTR.
>> For trunk, we normally use a bit of informal lazy consensus for
>> anything big, hard, or that might be controvertial... but we are not
>> officially RTC.
>>
>> -Yonik
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
> In any case, this is a branch. People really want to enforce RTC on a branch??? Even if that was our official process on trunk (which I agree it has not been) that's not how the flex branch worked. That's not how the solr_cloud branch worked. That's not how other previous branches have worked.
>
> IMO - anyone should be able to create a branch for anything - to play around with whatever they want. We should encourage this. Branches are good. And they take up little space.
>

+1.  Furthermore, it is incumbent on the people working on the branch to then present and discuss when/how to merge to trunk, just like any big patch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lucene and solr trunk

Shai Erera
Hi

My only concern w/ how SVN might end up organized is that I'll still be able checkout core lucene independently of Solr (and possibly contrib/modules) and then build and test it. Also a separate project in Eclipse is important as well.

How about this structure:
<root>/solr/trunk
<root>/lucene/trunk
<root>/modules/trunk

<root> can be left out if we don't think it's necessary.

This should allow us to:
1) Release each and everyone of them independently
2) Introduce dependencies between modules -> lucene and Solr -> modules + lucene as, IMO, it should be. Lucene is core, modules extends it and Solr extends and uses both.
3) Allow one to checkout exactly what it needs to work on.
4) Modules will always depend on a certain lucene version, either a cut release or trunk. When it's released, its build.xml will be changed as part of the release process to point to the lucene release (not trunk!) it supports and depends on.
5) Same for Solr.

When a patch for Solr needs to change code in lucene, it is done it both, by two different patches. Both are committed within the same issue. Since each trunk can depends on the other's trunk, this shouldn't be a problem.

Indeed, it will complicate a bit the build.xmls - like it's done today for core lucene and backwards. But that's ok I think. I don't expect all Solr issues to require a change in lucene as well as not all modules issues will. So that change to the build.xml should not be a frequent operation.

Another thing this will change (and I think for the better) is that a Solr release might require cutting a Lucene and modules ones, and I think we should be flexible about that. This also is not something I think will be frequent ... like today, Solr could still be limited to a certain lucene release or trunk revision.

I still this is still in line w/ one project, one codebase, just different levels of the really big parts (Solr, lucene and modules). Committers can be given access to <root> which will give them access to everything. Others (modules-committers) can be given access to just that folder (hijacking a bit from the other thread).

The flexibility of being able to checkout lucene code only is important, at least to me. I wouldn't want to lose it.

On the IRC stuff - I know that we cannot prevent anyone from discussing on issues anywhere, and I respect that freedom. It's just that some time ago I was told that I shouldn't hold 'private' discussions on Lucene, outside the community. I know that this IRC channel, that's called #lucene, is not completely outside the community, but here's how it looks to the outsider (not on IRC):
1) An issue is opened w/ comment "summarizing discussion on IRC ...".
2) Then a couple of hours later (or days), new comment: "more discussion summary on IRC".
3) Then some comment, some that are not on IRC
4) Then more comment (from an IRC-er): "ok we've discussed this and here's what we came up with ..."

Feels like we're on a need to know basis here. Remember that when a discussion is fully open, you might have some comments on what was said in the process. When you are given the final decision, or a summary, you cannot comment on what you weren't told. That's a bit frustrating ... though I'm trying very hard to be involved w/ the mailing list, it feels like I miss TONS of discussions on IRC ... and what seems worse (as I read somewhere in the thread) is that you can open an issue w/ an idea (like happened to me), just to discover the folks on IRC took it all the way to design and impl proposals, and I was left to read the summarization ...

So by no means am I trying to suggest that IRC discussions should stop. As I don't, can't and won't ever have control on that. Just like I cannot keep two people sitting in next rooms to discuss on issues or Lucene outside the list. But I'd feel better if when a discussion makes it to the list or an issue, it'd be conducted there from now on, and not as snippets/summaries of the IRC discussion. Can we keep at least that?

I don't want to get people off their seats w/ that request :). I'm not even sure I'm in a position to make such requests :). But I'd appreciate if it can be at least discussed (not on IRC).

Shai

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Mark Miller wrote:

> On 03/16/2010 10:09 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Michael Busch<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>> Also, we're in review-and-commit process, not commit-and-review.  Changes have to be
>>> proposed, discussed and ideally attached to jira as patches first.
>>>
>> Correction, just for the sake of avoiding future confusion (i.e. I'm
>> not making any point about this thread):
>>
>> Lucene and Solr have always officially been CTR.
>> For trunk, we normally use a bit of informal lazy consensus for
>> anything big, hard, or that might be controvertial... but we are not
>> officially RTC.
>>
>> -Yonik
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
> In any case, this is a branch. People really want to enforce RTC on a branch??? Even if that was our official process on trunk (which I agree it has not been) that's not how the flex branch worked. That's not how the solr_cloud branch worked. That's not how other previous branches have worked.
>
> IMO - anyone should be able to create a branch for anything - to play around with whatever they want. We should encourage this. Branches are good. And they take up little space.
>

+1.  Furthermore, it is incumbent on the people working on the branch to then present and discuss when/how to merge to trunk, just like any big patch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

#lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

steve_rowe
In reply to this post by Michael McCandless-2
On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
> Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...?

I gather from the deafening silence that we'll have to figure it out as we go...

I think some (not all) of the discomfort associated with IRC could be addressed with a permanent, searchable, linkable archive of #lucene.

I went looking for IRC loggers and found http://colabti.org/.  One of the things hosted there is a searchable, linkable permanent archive of several freenode channels.  I posted on #irclogger asking about hosting #lucene archive, and apparently all we have to do is ask, after first determining that nobody objects.  Here's a link (not incidentally, this is exactly what we will have for #lucene once the service is switched on):

http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/irclogger?date=2010-03-16#l2

So, would anybody participating on #lucene object to a permanent archive?

(I'm also going to provide a link to this thread on #lucene to make sure everybody there knows about the issue.)

Steve


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

Andi Vajda

On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:47, Steven A Rowe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
>> Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...?
>
> I gather from the deafening silence that we'll have to figure it out  
> as we go...
>
> I think some (not all) of the discomfort associated with IRC could  
> be addressed with a permanent, searchable, linkable archive of  
> #lucene.
>
> I went looking for IRC loggers and found http://colabti.org/.  One  
> of the things hosted there is a searchable, linkable permanent  
> archive of several freenode channels.  I posted on #irclogger asking  
> about hosting #lucene archive, and apparently all we have to do is  
> ask, after first determining that nobody objects.  Here's a link  
> (not incidentally, this is exactly what we will have for #lucene  
> once the service is switched on):
>
> http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/irclogger?
> date=2010-03-16#l2
>
> So, would anybody participating on #lucene object to a permanent  
> archive?

No objections on my part. I think this is essential.

Andi..

>
> (I'm also going to provide a link to this thread on #lucene to make  
> sure everybody there knows about the issue.)
>
> Steve
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

Grant Ingersoll-2
In reply to this post by steve_rowe

On Mar 16, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Steven A Rowe wrote:

> On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
>> Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...?
>
> I gather from the deafening silence that we'll have to figure it out as we go...
>
> I think some (not all) of the discomfort associated with IRC could be addressed with a permanent, searchable, linkable archive of #lucene.
>
> I went looking for IRC loggers and found http://colabti.org/.  One of the things hosted there is a searchable, linkable permanent archive of several freenode channels.  I posted on #irclogger asking about hosting #lucene archive, and apparently all we have to do is ask, after first determining that nobody objects.  Here's a link (not incidentally, this is exactly what we will have for #lucene once the service is switched on):
>
> http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/irclogger?date=2010-03-16#l2
>
> So, would anybody participating on #lucene object to a permanent archive?
>
> (I'm also going to provide a link to this thread on #lucene to make sure everybody there knows about the issue.)

There's also a lot of chatter that happens on IRC, so logging is going to have a lot of noise.  I'm still on the fence on what to do.  I don't want to get in people's way, but we also need to have traceability about decisions, and we certainly can't have answers like "We discussed this on IRC and you missed it, too bad" happening (not saying that has happening, just saying I don't want to see it).

-Grant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

Michael McCandless-2
In reply to this post by Andi Vajda
+1, this looks great!

Mike

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Andi Vajda <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:47, Steven A Rowe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...?
>>
>> I gather from the deafening silence that we'll have to figure it out as we
>> go...
>>
>> I think some (not all) of the discomfort associated with IRC could be
>> addressed with a permanent, searchable, linkable archive of #lucene.
>>
>> I went looking for IRC loggers and found http://colabti.org/.  One of the
>> things hosted there is a searchable, linkable permanent archive of several
>> freenode channels.  I posted on #irclogger asking about hosting #lucene
>> archive, and apparently all we have to do is ask, after first determining
>> that nobody objects.  Here's a link (not incidentally, this is exactly what
>> we will have for #lucene once the service is switched on):
>>
>> http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/irclogger?date=2010-03-16#l2
>>
>> So, would anybody participating on #lucene object to a permanent archive?
>
> No objections on my part. I think this is essential.
>
> Andi..
>
>>
>> (I'm also going to provide a link to this thread on #lucene to make sure
>> everybody there knows about the issue.)
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

Michael Busch
It be very cool to have a searchable archive for the IRC discussions, so +1.

But at the same time can we make sure that the decisions that are made
on IRC are still being described in a jira issue?  I don't mean that
people should repeat brainstorming, but if a discussion leads to opening
a Jira issue it'd be good to understand the reasons and details without
having to search the IRC log.  Only if someone wants to know more, e.g.
what lead to the discussion, what other ideas were discarded, etc.
should have to go to the IRC log.

  Michael

On 3/16/10 11:58 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:

> +1, this looks great!
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Andi Vajda<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>    
>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:47, Steven A Rowe<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
>>>        
>>>> Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...?
>>>>          
>>> I gather from the deafening silence that we'll have to figure it out as we
>>> go...
>>>
>>> I think some (not all) of the discomfort associated with IRC could be
>>> addressed with a permanent, searchable, linkable archive of #lucene.
>>>
>>> I went looking for IRC loggers and found http://colabti.org/.  One of the
>>> things hosted there is a searchable, linkable permanent archive of several
>>> freenode channels.  I posted on #irclogger asking about hosting #lucene
>>> archive, and apparently all we have to do is ask, after first determining
>>> that nobody objects.  Here's a link (not incidentally, this is exactly what
>>> we will have for #lucene once the service is switched on):
>>>
>>> http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/irclogger?date=2010-03-16#l2
>>>
>>> So, would anybody participating on #lucene object to a permanent archive?
>>>        
>> No objections on my part. I think this is essential.
>>
>> Andi..
>>
>>      
>>> (I'm also going to provide a link to this thread on #lucene to make sure
>>> everybody there knows about the issue.)
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>        
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>      
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
>    


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

Mark Miller-3
In reply to this post by Grant Ingersoll-2
On 03/16/2010 02:57 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> On Mar 16, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
>
>    
>> On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
>>      
>>> Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...?
>>>        
>> I gather from the deafening silence that we'll have to figure it out as we go...
>>
>> I think some (not all) of the discomfort associated with IRC could be addressed with a permanent, searchable, linkable archive of #lucene.
>>
>> I went looking for IRC loggers and found http://colabti.org/.  One of the things hosted there is a searchable, linkable permanent archive of several freenode channels.  I posted on #irclogger asking about hosting #lucene archive, and apparently all we have to do is ask, after first determining that nobody objects.  Here's a link (not incidentally, this is exactly what we will have for #lucene once the service is switched on):
>>
>> http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/irclogger?date=2010-03-16#l2
>>
>> So, would anybody participating on #lucene object to a permanent archive?
>>
>> (I'm also going to provide a link to this thread on #lucene to make sure everybody there knows about the issue.)
>>      
> There's also a lot of chatter that happens on IRC, so logging is going to have a lot of noise.  I'm still on the fence on what to do.  I don't want to get in people's way, but we also need to have traceability about decisions, and we certainly can't have answers like "We discussed this on IRC and you missed it, too bad" happening (not saying that has happening, just saying I don't want to see it).
>
> -Grant
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>    

Even with logging, I'm against using IRC for making decisions, or as
something people can point to. Even with searchable logging, I think we
should stick with, "if id didn't happen on the lists, it didn't happen".
Its the same as when some of us get together and talk about Lucene and
Solr - thats great stuff - you can get a lot done that is a lot harder
on the lists - you can hash a lot out. But I think people should always
have the right to act like it didn't happen - the same as if we are at
ApacheCon or something - we don't come back and say, sorry, you missed
all the discussion, but we had one and this what we are going to do. We
summarize the discussion on the list (like Mike likes to do with IRC),
and answer questions as people have them. I personally think its great
to come to mini agreements with real-time talk - then it just has to
make its way through the list.

This isn't a counter point to anything you said Grant, just a nice place
for me to drop this.

--
- Mark

http://www.lucidimagination.com




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

Grant Ingersoll-2

On Mar 16, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Mark Miller wrote:

> On 03/16/2010 02:57 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...?
>>>>      
>>> I gather from the deafening silence that we'll have to figure it out as we go...
>>>
>>> I think some (not all) of the discomfort associated with IRC could be addressed with a permanent, searchable, linkable archive of #lucene.
>>>
>>> I went looking for IRC loggers and found http://colabti.org/.  One of the things hosted there is a searchable, linkable permanent archive of several freenode channels.  I posted on #irclogger asking about hosting #lucene archive, and apparently all we have to do is ask, after first determining that nobody objects.  Here's a link (not incidentally, this is exactly what we will have for #lucene once the service is switched on):
>>>
>>> http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/irclogger?date=2010-03-16#l2
>>>
>>> So, would anybody participating on #lucene object to a permanent archive?
>>>
>>> (I'm also going to provide a link to this thread on #lucene to make sure everybody there knows about the issue.)
>>>    
>> There's also a lot of chatter that happens on IRC, so logging is going to have a lot of noise.  I'm still on the fence on what to do.  I don't want to get in people's way, but we also need to have traceability about decisions, and we certainly can't have answers like "We discussed this on IRC and you missed it, too bad" happening (not saying that has happening, just saying I don't want to see it).
>>
>> -Grant
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>  
>
> Even with logging, I'm against using IRC for making decisions, or as something people can point to. Even with searchable logging, I think we should stick with, "if id didn't happen on the lists, it didn't happen". Its the same as when some of us get together and talk about Lucene and Solr - thats great stuff - you can get a lot done that is a lot harder on the lists - you can hash a lot out. But I think people should always have the right to act like it didn't happen - the same as if we are at ApacheCon or something - we don't come back and say, sorry, you missed all the discussion, but we had one and this what we are going to do. We summarize the discussion on the list (like Mike likes to do with IRC), and answer questions as people have them. I personally think its great to come to mini agreements with real-time talk - then it just has to make its way through the list.
>
> This isn't a counter point to anything you said Grant, just a nice place for me to drop this.
>


+1.  The ApacheCon talks are a great example of bringing back off list stuff to the list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

hossman
In reply to this post by Mark Miller-3

: with, "if id didn't happen on the lists, it didn't happen". Its the same as

+1

But as the IRC channel gets used more and more, it would *also* be nice if
there was an archive of the IRC channel so that there is a place to go
look to understand the back story behind an idea once it's synthesized and
posted to the lists/jira.

That's the huge advantage IRC has over informal conversations at
hackathons, apachecon, and meetups -- there can in fact be easily
archivable/parsable/searchable records of the communication.



-Hoss


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

Michael McCandless-2
In reply to this post by Michael Busch
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Michael Busch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> But at the same time can we make sure that the decisions that are made on
> IRC are still being described in a jira issue?

+1

Any time something is discussed on IRC, it must be summarized on the
lists or in an issue, with the details based on what was discussed, or
else it didn't happen....

IRC is a great way to hash out ideas, brainstorm, shoot the breeze,
vent, etc.  Much of what's discussed doesn't pan out... but when stuff
does we always bring to the lists...

Those of us spending some time on IRC have been trying to do exactly
that.  Maybe we've been falling short sometimes, not providing enough
detail, so we should fix that with time.  We're all still learning as
we go...

Also: if an issue is opened and it's missing details, regardless of
whether it was born in IRC or some other place, people should simply
ask questions, punch holes, etc.  When another set of eyes, or the
same set of eyes some time later, look at the issue, very different
and healthy iterations happen.  Most certainly if something seems like
a good idea during IRC discussions that doesn't not mean the debate is
done -- rather the issue is opened and lots of other people chime in.

Nothing is "decided" on IRC... only ideas are born... that's all.

Stepping back, Lucene/Solr are clearly at a fast pace of innovation
right now, and this is really very healthy.  It'd already been fast a
few months ago, but it seems to be accelerating... I think that's
because suddenly we have quite a few strong [near-] full-time devs
here, and, because IRC allows for real-time conversations for
brainstorming.

This is net/net good for both Lucene and Solr and I think we should
try to find a way to make IRC work well so devs that do happen to
have the time (and, the list will change with time -- bright stars never
shine for long) can brainstorm and bring new ideas to the community...

Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

Yonik Seeley-2
IRC has been discussed to death at Apache:
http://markmail.org/search/?q=IRC+list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general

Look for the spikes... like this:

http://markmail.org/search/?q=IRC+list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general#query:IRC%20list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general%20date%3A200608%20+page:1+state:facets

-Yonik

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lucene and solr trunk

Michael McCandless-2
In reply to this post by Yonik Seeley-2
The primary concern seems to be ensuring that, once we
merge svn, one can still checkout & build & run tests/etc for
Lucene alone.

If we move lucene under Solr's existing svn path, ie:

  /solr/trunk/lucene

and then fixup solr's build files to go and compile sources from the
lucene dir, run tests there, etc., then, one can still checkout & run
lucene fully independently -- this addresses that concern?

So.... how about we start with this approach?  Progress not
perfection...  If somehow this layout is a problem then we can just
move things around, again.

Alot of great progress has already been made on the temporary branch
-- Solr runs fine on Lucene trunk!  And, also on flex.  We need to
settle an initial svn structure so the changes on the branch can
be fully reviewed & then committed to trunk and normal dev can
proceed...

We don't need to solve how modules/contribs, etc., are going to be
fixed, now -- that all can come later.  IRC issues, using GIT instead,
etc. should also be discussed separately.  Let's just pick a place in
svn and free up ongoing dev...

Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lucene and solr trunk

Jake Mannix


On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Michael McCandless <[hidden email]> wrote:
If we move lucene under Solr's existing svn path, ie:

 /solr/trunk/lucene

Chiming in just a bit here - isn't there any concern that independent of whether or not people "can"
build lucene without checking out solr, the mere fact that Lucene will be effectively a "subdirectory" 
of solr... is there no concern that there will then be a perception that Lucene is a subproject of
Solr, instead of vice-versa?

The way mavenified projects work is that there would instead be a top level in which both solr
and lucene would be submodules (and thus also subdirectories in svn), with a dependency 
from solr to lucene (in the pom.xml for maven, but easy enough to do with the build.xml with
ant).  Checking out solr without lucene should be doable (using snapshot jars from lucene 
trunk nightly, maybe?), and the reverse should be easy, as could be checking out the 
top-level and getting everything (including a top-level build.xml which <include>'s or antcall's
into the subdirectory build.xmls).

It seems really weird to have Lucene appear as a subdirectory of Solr, especially for people
out there who aren't using Solr.

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

Re: lucene and solr trunk

Yonik Seeley-2
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Jake Mannix <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Michael McCandless
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> If we move lucene under Solr's existing svn path, ie:
>>
>>  /solr/trunk/lucene
>
> Chiming in just a bit here - isn't there any concern that independent of
> whether or not people "can"
> build lucene without checking out solr, the mere fact that Lucene will be
> effectively a "subdirectory"
> of solr...  is there no concern that there will then be a perception that Lucene is a subproject of
> Solr, instead of vice-versa?

Who would have this perception?
Casual users will be using downloads.

Likewise, should solr be concerned that it's currently under a lucene
URL?  How many casual users actually understand the difference between
the lucene TLP and the lucene java subproject?

This is really about what makes most sense for development.

-Yonik

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lucene and solr trunk

Shai Erera
Where would the modules live?

I'm not sure if I sent it on this thread or somewhere else, but what about my proposal to have all three sitting under their own directories, w/ their own trunk/branch/tags, and if it's easier for dev then put all three under one root (for permission management maybe)?

Shai

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Yonik Seeley <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Jake Mannix <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Michael McCandless
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> If we move lucene under Solr's existing svn path, ie:
>>
>>  /solr/trunk/lucene
>
> Chiming in just a bit here - isn't there any concern that independent of
> whether or not people "can"
> build lucene without checking out solr, the mere fact that Lucene will be
> effectively a "subdirectory"
> of solr...  is there no concern that there will then be a perception that Lucene is a subproject of
> Solr, instead of vice-versa?

Who would have this perception?
Casual users will be using downloads.

Likewise, should solr be concerned that it's currently under a lucene
URL?  How many casual users actually understand the difference between
the lucene TLP and the lucene java subproject?

This is really about what makes most sense for development.

-Yonik

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lucene and solr trunk

Jake Mannix
In reply to this post by Yonik Seeley-2
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Yonik Seeley <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Chiming in just a bit here - isn't there any concern that independent of
> whether or not people "can"
> build lucene without checking out solr, the mere fact that Lucene will be
> effectively a "subdirectory"
> of solr...  is there no concern that there will then be a perception that Lucene is a subproject of
> Solr, instead of vice-versa?

Who would have this perception?
Casual users will be using downloads.

Developers and dev managers at companies doing build vs. buy decisions regarding
whether they will do one of the following:

1) pay big bucks to get FAST or whatever
2) use Solr (free/cheap!)
3) pay [variable] bucks to build their own with Lucene
4) pay [variable but high] to build their own from scratch

I'm not concerned with casual downloaders.  I'm talking about the companies and people who
may or may not be interested in making multi-million dollar decisions regarding using or 
not using Lucene or Solr.

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

Re: lucene and solr trunk

Yonik Seeley
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Jake Mannix <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm not concerned with casual downloaders.  I'm talking about the companies
> and people who
> may or may not be interested in making multi-million dollar decisions
> regarding using or
> not using Lucene or Solr.

Heh - multi-million dollar decisions after a quick glance at an SVN url?

-Yonik

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

123