I suppose I'm overdue for chiming in. Though I'm still working to
comprehend what this all really means.
On Mar 9, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
We are not voting on commiting a specific patch, or releasing a
particular
bundle of source code, or on select a logo from a finite set of
entries,
or on giving a person commit karma -- we are voting largely on the
'idea'
that development should be merged.
And this is what has had me scratching my head here. Voting for an
idea... how about giving us something concrete to vote on. Ok...
Only two aspects of "the proposal" are concrete and actionable:
merging
the dev lists, and merging the commiter lists -- those are the only
two
bullet points that can be voted on and pass with a clear and obvious
immediate ction an effect.
And on these points, I'm +0. All the rationale for why we need to
merge those two just doesn't make a lot of sense to me, especially
given the overlap. The Solr committers could have been aggressive
about pushing function queries, analyzers, etc down into Lucene. No
merging of lists/committers is necessary, just good ol' fashioned
cooperation and elbow grease.
The Lucene community certainly won't object to having proven
goodnesses pushed into it from Solr. And Solr most definitely
benefits from the improvements made to Lucene. And forcing Lucene-
only folks to care about Solr working with the lower-level changes
isn't going to work. If you're not using Solr, you're simply not
going go the extra distance to keep its tests happy.
Let's hear proposals for how to *implement* that goal, and then lets
vote
one those.
Hear hear.
I am +1 on more cooperation and working together, no question. But we
need true action items to vote on.
Erik
