My biggest de-merge argument is the loss of Uwe!! Who will handle Solr's sophisticated tokesteam jsps and xml obscurities.
On Apr 26, 2011, at 5:28 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > Hi, > > Strong -1 to unmerge. > > Many of you know that I was originally against the merge, but once I saw the > possibilities (especially refactoring the analysis stuff), I started to also > actively support it. I helped together with lots of other > previous-only-Lucene committers to move the svn together and rewrite parts > of the build system. After that we started to move analyzers to one place, > added Solr by factories for *all* Lucene analyzers available and vice versa > opened Solr analyzers to Lucene users. We removed lots of deprecated code > usage (which made Solr move from Lucene 2.9 to 3.0). This was especially the > work of Lucene committers who originally developed the new analysis API. > Solr had at this time not many active developers, so help from Lucene users > was welcome. So at this time, the merge helped both projects. > > Problems started at that time, when some of us suggested to "remove" > features from Solr and move it to Lucene Core, means faceting (I mentioned > that first on a conference to the public, which disagreed some people), > function queries, schema support, clustering, dismax. From my point of view > as originally only a "Lucene Committer" is, that Solr was and is still > somehow dominated by one person who is afraid of losing functionality in > Solr that was originally developed by him and this could reduce the power of > Solr on the market (yes, there is also a company behind, that mainly wants > to sell consulting to Solr users [as this is of course easier to do], but > that's just a side note). > > I think instead of splitting again, Lucene TLP should consider thinking > about better communication between the committers, allow different opinions > for Solr's later development and maybe vote a new PMC (as the current PMC > was simply merged from Solr and Lucene, where conflicts are programmed). > > If the merged Lucene+Solr is not what the dominating person wants to have, > it is free to fork Solr from Apache (yes it's open source and you can > sell/provide a forked version to customers with only huper-duper features > that separates from Lucene, but I think this is already done - > LW-Enterprise). But if most committers here want to help to bring both > Lucene+Solr to the top of search engines, they are free to do it at the ASF > with discussion and also lots of code refactoring - we are using SVN, so we > always have the track what was done. Reverting or not reverting is only > political, nothing technical. And disagreement is also valid in an open > source project, but disagreeing people should sometimes revise their opinion > - this applies to a few more people here, I am also not always the best > discussion partner (police is the executive... *g*). > > Uwe > > ----- > Uwe Schindler > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > http://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ysee...@gmail.com [mailto:ysee...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yonik >> Seeley >> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 8:50 PM >> To: general@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: [VOTE] Create Solr TLP >> >> A single merged project works only when people are relatively on the same >> page, and when people feel it's mutually beneficial. Recent events make > it >> clear that that is no longer the case. >> >> Improvements to Solr have been recently blocked and reverted on the >> grounds that the new functionality was not immediately available to > non-Solr >> users. >> This was obviously never part of the original idea (well actually - it was >> considered but rejected as too onerous). But the past doesn't matter as >> much as the present - about how people chose to act and interpret things >> today. >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2272 >> http://markmail.org/message/unrvjfudcbgqatsy >> >> Some people warned us against merging at the start, and I guess it turns > out >> they were right. >> >> I no longer feel it's in Solr's best interests to remain under the same > PMC as >> Lucene-Java, and I know some other committers who have said they feel like >> Lucene got the short end of the stick. But rather than arguing about > who's >> right (maybe both?) since enough of us feel it's no longer mutually > beneficial, >> we should stop fighting and just go our separate ways. >> >> Please VOTE to create a new Apache Solr TLP. >> >> Here's my +1 >> >> -Yonik > - Mark Miller lucidimagination.com Lucene/Solr User Conference May 25-26, San Francisco www.lucenerevolution.org