The problem with a single repository is that it will/may conflict at times. Also, I still don't see the problem with having the extra repo as long as we aren't releasing anything.
The problem with (b) is that you can't create a PR from a random repository to a repo it isn't a fork of. I also don't think people should own code and build outside of the ASF umbrella until things are ready to be released, it's completely against the Apache Way. Having the code in the ASF umbrella comes at no cost to the project. If at any point it needs to be dropped, it's easier and cleaner as it wouldn't touch anything else. Does this make sense? On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 1:46 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not necessarily. Most people contribute to Apache Lucene/Solr using > external repositories (forks) and raise pull requests against Apache owned > repositories. There's no SGA needed on such occasions. > > I see two paths forward from here. > > a) Lets setup a single repository for all packages/plugins, say > lucene-solr-extras or lucene-solr-contribs or lucene-solr-sandbox etc., and > develop it there. > b) All development for this effort happens in an external repository ( > https://github.com/apple/solr-dc or https://github.com/anshumg/solr-dc) > and we raise a PR against Apache owned repository (which can be created if > needed once we are all onboard). > > What does everyone else think? > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 10:23 AM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote: > >> An external repository probably ends up requiring a software grant? I >> know there is a material difference between code originating externally and >> code originating within the umbrella of the ASF in terms of IP, copyright, >> or other legal status. >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 8:11 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> If all we need now is a place to commit a PoC for now (and something >>> like sandbox repo or contribs won't suffice), why can't we have a separate >>> repository in GitHub outside Apache and merge into an Apache repository >>> only once the code takes reasonable shape? >>> >>> On Fri, 8 Jan, 2021, 2:31 am Anshum Gupta, <ans...@anshumgupta.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for the feedback, Mike. >>>> >>>> I like the idea of the sandbox, but that might be restricting when we >>>> want to work on more than one repos. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure if that would happen in the near future, but as we can >>>> always discard the repo and it doesn't really come at a cost, I don't see a >>>> problem with having a repo created for this specific reason. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 12:45 PM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm not sure where I sit on this, going to start typing things and >>>>> then hopefully I'll reach a conclusion by the end. >>>>> >>>>> This definitely needs to be outside of the core solr repo so that it >>>>> can be versioned and released independently. And I disagree with Ishan >>>>> about the consequence of abandoning the repository - if we realize that >>>>> it's a bad direction then we can pivot, but we shouldn't let a fear of the >>>>> unknown stop us from doing it in the first place. >>>>> >>>>> However, if all we need right now is a place to commit code that is >>>>> WIP, then what we really want is a sandbox to play with, and not >>>>> necessarily a strongly directed repo. Lucene has a sandbox in the main >>>>> code. We could similarly start this under Solr contrib and move it out >>>>> before an actual release of 9x happens. Or maybe we start with a >>>>> [lucene-]solr-sandbox repository that we can throw all sorts of stuff into >>>>> and then when components are mature enough they get to graduate into their >>>>> own repo? >>>>> >>>>> Mike >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:32 PM Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I understand your concern, but this is the placeholder for where the >>>>>> code would be, not what the code would look like. >>>>>> >>>>>> Considering we agreed to do this in a repository outside of the core, >>>>>> I believe this is a good place to start. The idea that the release >>>>>> cadence >>>>>> for the cross-dc effort should be different from that of core is an >>>>>> argument in favor of this approach, but I'm happy to talk more about it. >>>>>> I just thought that based on the original email, folks were on-board >>>>>> with the idea of this being outside of core Solr artifact/release. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:06 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>>>>> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> -1 on this. Without finalizing on the shape of how the solution will >>>>>>> look like, I don't think we should start a repository: it would be bad >>>>>>> if >>>>>>> we have to abandon the repository of our approach changes (say we want >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> keep it tightly integrated inside Solr). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan, 2021, 11:45 pm Anshum Gupta, <ans...@anshumgupta.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Inline with my earlier email, I'll be requesting a new repository >>>>>>>> to host the cross-dc work. Please let me know if you have any >>>>>>>> questions or >>>>>>>> concerns. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Repository name: *solr-crossdc >>>>>>>> *Generated name:* lucene-solr-crossdc.git (that's auto-generated, >>>>>>>> so can't remove the TLP prefix) >>>>>>>> *Commit notification list:* commits-cros...@lucene.apache.org (I >>>>>>>> think it makes sense for these commit notifications to go to a new >>>>>>>> list, >>>>>>>> but I'm open to reusing the old one) >>>>>>>> *GitHub notification list:* dev@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'll be submitting a request for the same later in the day today if >>>>>>>> there are no concerns. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Anshum Gupta >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Anshum Gupta >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Anshum Gupta >>>> >>> -- Anshum Gupta
