On Sep 20, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Sep 20, 2010, at 3:46 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: >>> I am also re-asserting (as I have asserted in the past) that the Maven >>> artifacts are *optional*. >>> We've discussed maven not being mandatory before: >>> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/bd618c89a4d458dc/lucene_2_9_again >>> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/3b98fa9ec3073936 >>> >> >> You asserting in previous threads that Maven is optional does not make it >> optional. > > I *think* that's a roundabout way of saying that you do think it's > mandatory. But you've been unable to point to how it became > mandatory... and there seems to be a distinct lack of consensus over > it. Certainly makes it sound optional.
Well, given that we have been doing it since Lucene _1.2_ (Nov. 2005, http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/lucene/lucene/) for every single release we do (both Lucene and Solr), I would say it is a feature our users expect. Does that make it mandatory? Technically no. Does that mean some RM gets to choose to do it at their discretion b/c they don't feel like it without consulting the community? I don't think that is right. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
