On May 5, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On May 5, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: >> >>> 3. Those who think most should be modularized, but realize it's a ton of >>> work for an unproven gain (although most admit it is a highly likely gain) >>> and should be handled on a case-by-case basis as people do the work. I >>> don't have anything against modularization, I just know, given my schedule, >>> I won't be able to block off weeks of time to do it. I'm happy to review >>> where/when I can. >> >> +1. From what I have gathered, Grant and I come down pretty much on the same >> page on most of this stuff. Yeah, that mean's I'm reevaluating my position >> :) but seems to be the case. > > so this is one thing I really don't understand. you say you are in the > 3rd camp. Guys in that camp have not much time to do the work but > still are not willing to sign up for what we want to modularize.
I don't follow this leap. (BTW, I'm actually mostly in camp #1 and a little in camp #3, I just want to make sure, based on what I've read that all sides are represented. I like Mike's approach, but I also know it is a ton of work and details matter.) > Nobody asks you to do the work I only ask you to say ok I think this > is good and NOT sitting in the way blocking others. This is really > what the 3rd camp is about to me but maybe I miss-understand something > here. > > Again you are saying you are not in camp 1 but you want to still > fiddle around with long discussion before we get anything done (and > eventually be against it - nothing personal) I don't think that is what Mark is saying nor is it what camp #3 is saying. And I don't think we are fiddling w/ long discussions (it's only been a couple of days.) This is hugely important. We need consensus to move forward. > because you don't have > enough time to fit stiff in your schedule. This makes no sense to me. > That case by case stuff makes me sick. Lets put some goals out and say > ok this makes sense in a module this doesn't and let folks work on it. To me, the third camp is just saying the proof is in the pudding. If you want to refactor, then go for it. Just make sure everything still works, which of course I know people will (but part of that means actually running Solr, IMO). Perhaps, more importantly don't get mad that if I have only one day a week to work on Lucene/Solr that I spend it putting a specific feature in a specific place. Just because something can/should be modularized, doesn't mean that a person working in that area must do it before they add whatever they were working on. For instance, if and when function queries are a module, I will add to them there and be happy to do so. In the meantime, I will likely add to them in Solr if that is something I happen to be interested in at that time b/c I can certainly add a new function in a day, but I can't refactor the whole module _and_ add my new function in a day. In the end, I think we are in agreement (at least you and me), actually. To me, the best place to start on this is: 1. Function queries 2. Spatial 3. Faceting (In that order) -Grant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
