On Sep 20, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: > > Because it's not authoritative. How would our users know which one is the > official one? By publishing it under the ASF one with our signatures we are > saying this is our official version. We would never claim that the Solr > Commons CSV one is the official Commons jar, it's just the official one that > Solr officially uses. It's a big difference. Besides, it's not like the > iBiblio repo is open to anyone. You have to apply and you have to have > authority to write to it. For the ASF, there is a whole sync process whereby > iBiblio syncs with an ASF version. In other words, we are the only ones who > can publish it to the same space where it is currently published. > > > This "authoratitiveness" comes with a significant cost, that is the > complexity of maven in our release process. I'm not convinced its worth this > cost, and before we decide to have maven as part of the release, i'd like for > there to be an actual vote.
I agree. But, like I said, if those who want it step up and make it fully supported, then there is no more cost than uploading a few extra artifacts, then what's the extra cost? As usual in open source, why don't we just leave it those who do the work? If no one steps up and fixes it, then it doesn't get included. > > Sorry to change my tone, but I was under the impression we needed a lucene > committer to do all this releasing work to support maven, it seems that this > is not the case, and other options are available. > I'm sorry, I don't see the other options. I think it does need to be done by a Lucene committer to be an official Lucene artifact. OK, well, I suppose some other ASF person could do it, but short of a benevolent volunteer to do so, I don't think there are other options. -Grant
