I have to agree w/ Jake that putting Lucene under Solr gives the impression as if suddenly Lucene became dependent on it ... and for really no good reasons. Are we making that decision to simplify the build of Solr? What are the problems Solr faces today w.r.t. its build and using a Lucene release or trunk revision?
I didn't follow the Lucene/Solr merge on general@, because I didn't even know such a beast exists. So I guess I'm missing something ... Shai On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Yonik Seeley <yo...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > Chiming in just a bit here - isn't there any concern that independent >> of >> > whether or not people "can" >> > build lucene without checking out solr, the mere fact that Lucene will >> be >> > effectively a "subdirectory" >> > of solr... is there no concern that there will then be a perception >> that Lucene is a subproject of >> > Solr, instead of vice-versa? >> >> Who would have this perception? >> Casual users will be using downloads. >> > > Developers and dev managers at companies doing build vs. buy decisions > regarding > whether they will do one of the following: > > 1) pay big bucks to get FAST or whatever > 2) use Solr (free/cheap!) > 3) pay [variable] bucks to build their own with Lucene > 4) pay [variable but high] to build their own from scratch > > I'm not concerned with casual downloaders. I'm talking about the companies > and people who > may or may not be interested in making multi-million dollar decisions > regarding using or > not using Lucene or Solr. > > -jake >
