Re: [VOTE] Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)

2010-03-09 Thread Chris Hostetter
: I still don't like that we're voting on a Goal : : I don't quite understand what you mean here. As I read it, the proposal : from Michael is pretty specific on details. We are not voting on commiting a specific patch, or releasing a particular bundle of source code, or on select a logo

Re: [VOTE] Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)

2010-03-08 Thread Ryan McKinley
Wow... i've been offline for a while (new baby, yy!) and am now skimming through the various lists... On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: A new vote, that slightly changes proposal from last vote (adding only that Lucene can cut a release

Re: [VOTE] Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)

2010-03-05 Thread Grant Ingersoll
On Mar 4, 2010, at 6:26 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote: : Subject: [VOTE] 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): -1 I still don't like that we're

Re: [VOTE] Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)

2010-03-05 Thread Grant Ingersoll
On Mar 4, 2010, at 6:26 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote: : Subject: [VOTE] 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): -1 I still don't like that we're

[VOTE] Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)

2010-03-04 Thread Michael McCandless
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

Re: [VOTE] Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)

2010-03-04 Thread Michael McCandless
I forgot my vote: +1 Mike On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: 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

Re: [VOTE] Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)

2010-03-04 Thread Mark Miller
+1 On 03/04/2010 04:34 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: I forgot my vote: +1 Mike On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: A new vote, that slightly changes proposal from last vote (adding only that Lucene can cut a release even if Solr doesn't):

Re: [VOTE] Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)

2010-03-04 Thread Yonik Seeley
+1 -Yonik On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: 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.  *

RE: [VOTE] Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)

2010-03-04 Thread Uwe Schindler
Subject: [VOTE] 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

Re: [VOTE] Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)

2010-03-04 Thread Shalin Shekhar Mangar
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: 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

Re: [VOTE] Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)

2010-03-04 Thread Robert Muir
+1 On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Andi Vajda va...@apache.org wrote: +1 Andi.. On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Michael McCandless wrote: 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

Re: [VOTE] Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)

2010-03-04 Thread Bill Au
+1 Bill On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: 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. *

Re: [VOTE] Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)

2010-03-04 Thread Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
Hi All, -1 for the same reasons I mentioned previously. Again, I'm wearing my I'm-interested-in-this-discussion-but-not-a-Lucene/Solr-committer hat. Cheers, Chris On 3/4/10 1:33 PM, Michael McCandless luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote: A new vote, that slightly changes proposal from last vote

Re: [VOTE] Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)

2010-03-04 Thread Michael Busch
+1. This compromise is what I was hoping for. Michael On 3/4/10 1:33 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: 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

Re: [VOTE] Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2)

2010-03-04 Thread Chris Hostetter
: Subject: [VOTE] 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): -1 I still don't like that we're voting on a Goal I still think that we should approach something