On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:39 AM, patrick o'leary <pj...@pjaol.com> wrote: > Hows that? > > Which vote has been passed? 1,2 or 3? > Considering how much has been discussed / altered in email threads, what's > actually been voted upon? > > The proposition is definitely unclear, and needs full fleshing out and > discussion before another vote is called. > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Thanks everyone, this vote has passed. >> A bit more contentious of a PMC vote than usual, but the committer >> vote was clear. While I have voted +1 I have to admin that I don't know which vote has passed or if at all. The noise on this vote / issue was extremely high from a community side I rather consider this as being far away from a consensus decision. I have to agree with chris that due to all the community discussions and arguments on the issue some might change their mind or come up with a proposal that work better for everybody. Lets wait a week or two, discuss again and vote again. Unless we don't get a clear vote without all this discussions I'd say there is still something "wrong" with the proposal.
Don't get me wrong, I agree the committer vote was kind of clear but both projects are more than a list of committers and if the community is unhappy we should take the time and revise such a major structural / procedural change. Are we in a rush!? I don't think so. Simon >> >> -Yonik >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Apoligies in advance for calling yet another vote, but I just wanted >> > to make sure this was official. >> > Mike's second VOTE thread could probably technically stand on it's own >> > (since it included PMC votes), but given that I said in my previous >> > VOTE thread that I was just polling Lucene/Solr committers and would >> > call a second PMC vote, that may have acted to suppress PMC votes on >> > Mike's thread also. >> > >> > Please vote for the proposal quoted below to merge lucene/solr >> development. >> > Here's my +1 >> > >> > -Yonik >> > >> > Mike's call for a VOTE (amongst lucene/solr committers +11 to -1): >> > >> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/a400ffe62ae21aca/vote_merge_the_development_of_solr_lucene_take_2#22d7cd086d9c5cf0 >> >> Subject: Merge the development of Solr/Lucene (take 2) >> >> A new vote, that slightly changes proposal from last vote (adding only >> >> that Lucene can cut a release even if Solr doesn't): >> >> >> >> * Merging the dev lists into a single list. >> >> >> >> * Merging committers. >> >> >> >> * When any change is committed (to a module that "belongs to" Solr or >> >> to Lucene), all tests must pass. >> >> >> >> * Release details will be decided by dev community, but, Lucene may >> >> release without Solr. >> >> >> >> * Modulariize the sources: pull things out of Lucene's core (break >> >> out query parser, move all core queries & analyzers under their >> >> contrib counterparts), pull things out of Solr's core (analyzers, >> >> queries). >> >> >> >> These things would not change: >> >> >> >> * Besides modularizing (above), the source code would remain factored >> >> into separate dirs/modules the way it is now. >> >> >> >> * Issue tracking remains separate (SOLR-XXX and LUCENE-XXX >> >> issues). >> >> >> >> * User's lists remain separate. >> >> >> >> * Web sites remain separate. >> >> >> >> * Release artifacts/jars remain separate. >> > >> >
