Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 01:30:42PM -0700, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > Archiving the logs feels like it would be useful, but realistically > speaking, they would be pretty big and who has the time to read them after > the fact? Someone who participated in the chat reviewing it while preparing a sum

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

? ;) Otis Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/ > >From: Ian Holsman >To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org >Sent: Thu, March 18, 2010 1:47:56 AM >Subject: Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk] > &g

Re: lucene and solr trunk

All tests pass for me :) Mike On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > Alight, so we have implemented Hoss' suggestion here on the lucene/solr > merged dev branch at lucene/solr/branches/newtrunk. > > Feel free to check it out and give some feedback. > > We also roughly have Solr r

Re: lucene and solr trunk

Alight, so we have implemented Hoss' suggestion here on the lucene/solr merged dev branch at lucene/solr/branches/newtrunk. Feel free to check it out and give some feedback. We also roughly have Solr running on Lucene trunk - eg compiling Solr will first compile lucene and run off those compil

Re: lucene and solr trunk

> Unless maven has some features i'm not aware of, your "nicely depends" > works buy pulling Lucene jars from a repository The 'missing feature' is called multi-module projects. On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:33, Chris Hostetter wrote: > : build and nicely gets all dependencies to Lucene and Tika whe

Re: lucene and solr trunk

what other libraries do is have a 'core' or a 'common' bit.. which is what the lucene library really is. looking at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/ today I see that nearly, but it's called 'java'. maybe just renaming 'java' to 'core' or 'common' (hadoop uses common) might make sense a

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

+1 I'd like to see the IRC logs added to things like http://search-lucene.com/ and http://www.lucidimagination.com/search/?q=IRC&Search=Search while it might not be great for decision making.. it is amazing for helping debug comm

Re: lucene and solr trunk

: build and nicely gets all dependencies to Lucene and Tika whenever I build : or release, no problem there and certainly no need to have it merged into : Lucene's svn! The key distinction is that Solr is allready in "Lucene's svn" -- The question is how reorg things in a way that makes it easier

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On Tuesday 16 March 2010 14:12:20 Mark Miller wrote: > On 03/16/2010 09:05 AM, Andrzej Bialecki wrote: > > > > You could have used git instead. There is a good integration > > between git and svn, and it's much easier (a giant > > understatement...) to handle branching and merging in git, both > >

Re: lucene and solr trunk

Some of these people got traumatized by maven, now they only can think in terms of "mash everything together and sprinkle with hand-downloaded dependency jars". No offence : ) I, personally, prefer side-by-side layouts. You can add new stuff, and wire dependencies to the old one, without reorganiz

Re: lucene and solr trunk

I'm just a surprised observer that doesn't seems to get all the trouble and need for this svn merge. I have my own private Solr-like framework around Lucene. It uses maven to build and nicely gets all dependencies to Lucene and Tika whenever I build or release, no problem there and certainly no ne

Re: lucene and solr trunk

Duh -- I meant to reply to Hoss' proposal, below: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: > +1 > > I like this proposal! > > I agree we should not preclude the future (modules), let's just not > hold up dev today until we solve it. > > I agree your side by side solution would a

Re: lucene and solr trunk

What about tagging and branching? When we cut a Lucene release we also tag Solr, even though it's not being released? Michael On 3/16/10 3:47 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: But it's actually the reverse? Solr depends on Lucene but not vice/versa. (If instead I proposed making Solr a subdir

Re: lucene and solr trunk

+1 I like this proposal! I agree we should not preclude the future (modules), let's just not hold up dev today until we solve it. I agree your side by side solution would allow for us to later factor up modules (eg analyzers). Mike On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Michael McCandless wrote: >

Re: lucene and solr trunk

But it's actually the reverse? Solr depends on Lucene but not vice/versa. (If instead I proposed making Solr a subdir of Lucene then I'd agree) So... if you checkout only lucene, you can cd there and do all you do today with Lucene ("ant test", "ant dist", "svn diff", etc.). If you checkout

Re: lucene and solr trunk

Dev is now merged with Solr and Lucene -- that has already passed. If that will scare customers away, that's a risk we take -- the benefits of merged dev outweigh that, in my opinion. The incremental risk that the details of our svn URLs will scare people away seems negligible. And we can always

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Jake Mannix > wrote: > > 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 > >

Re: lucene and solr trunk

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

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Jake Mannix wrote: > 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. Heh - multi-million dollar de

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Yonik Seeley 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 the

Re: lucene and solr trunk

Where would the modules live? I'm not sure if I sent it on this thread or somewhere else, but what about my proposal to have all three sitting under their own directories, w/ their own trunk/branch/tags, and if it's easier for dev then put all three under one root (for permission management maybe)

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Jake Mannix wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Michael McCandless > wrote: >> >> If we move lucene under Solr's existing svn path, ie: >> >>  /solr/trunk/lucene > > Chiming in just a bit here - isn't there any concern that independent of > whether or not pe

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Michael McCandless < luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > > If we move lucene under Solr's existing svn path, ie: > > /solr/trunk/lucene Chiming in just a bit here - isn't there any concern that independent of whether or not people "can" build lucene without check

Re: lucene and solr trunk

The primary concern seems to be ensuring that, once we merge svn, one can still checkout & build & run tests/etc for Lucene alone. If we move lucene under Solr's existing svn path, ie: /solr/trunk/lucene and then fixup solr's build files to go and compile sources from the lucene dir, run tests

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

IRC has been discussed to death at Apache: http://markmail.org/search/?q=IRC+list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general Look for the spikes... like this: http://markmail.org/search/?q=IRC+list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general#query:IRC%20list%3Aorg.apache.incubator.general%20date%3A200608%20+page:1+state:

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Michael Busch wrote: > But at the same time can we make sure that the decisions that are made on > IRC are still being described in a jira issue? +1 Any time something is discussed on IRC, it must be summarized on the lists or in an issue, with the details based

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

: with, "if id didn't happen on the lists, it didn't happen". Its the same as +1 But as the IRC channel gets used more and more, it would *also* be nice if there was an archive of the IRC channel so that there is a place to go look to understand the back story behind an idea once it's synthesi

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

On Mar 16, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > On 03/16/2010 02:57 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: >> On Mar 16, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Steven A Rowe wrote: >> >> >>> On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote: >>> Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...? >>>

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

On 03/16/2010 02:57 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: On Mar 16, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Steven A Rowe wrote: On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote: Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...? I gather from the deafening silence that we'll have to figure it out as we

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

It be very cool to have a searchable archive for the IRC discussions, so +1. But at the same time can we make sure that the decisions that are made on IRC are still being described in a jira issue? I don't mean that people should repeat brainstorming, but if a discussion leads to opening a Ji

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

+1, this looks great! Mike On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Andi Vajda wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:47, Steven A Rowe wrote: > >> On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote: >>> >>> Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...? >> >> I gather from the deafening silence that w

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

On Mar 16, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Steven A Rowe wrote: > On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote: >> Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...? > > I gather from the deafening silence that we'll have to figure it out as we > go... > > I think some (not all) of the discomfort ass

Re: #lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

On Mar 16, 2010, at 11:47, Steven A Rowe wrote: On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote: Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...? I gather from the deafening silence that we'll have to figure it out as we go... I think some (not all) of the discomfort associated wi

#lucene IRC log [was: RE: lucene and solr trunk]

On 03/16/2010 at 6:06 AM, Michael McCandless wrote: > Does anyone know how other projects fold in IRC...? I gather from the deafening silence that we'll have to figure it out as we go... I think some (not all) of the discomfort associated with IRC could be addressed with a permanent, searchable,

Re: lucene and solr trunk

Hi My only concern w/ how SVN might end up organized is that I'll still be able checkout core lucene independently of Solr (and possibly contrib/modules) and then build and test it. Also a separate project in Eclipse is important as well. How about this structure: /solr/trunk /lucene/trunk /modul

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:18 AM, Mark Miller wrote: > On 03/16/2010 10:09 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Michael Busch wrote: >> >>> Also, we're in review-and-commit process, not commit-and-review. Changes >>> have to be >>> proposed, discussed and ideally attached t

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Michael McCandless wrote: > I think it like the 1st option best (lucene moves as subdir to solr's > current trunk SVN path), but I don't feel strongly. > > This'd mean one could simply checkout lucene alone and do everything > you can do today. > > But if you check

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On 03/16/2010 10:09 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Michael Busch wrote: Also, we're in review-and-commit process, not commit-and-review. Changes have to be proposed, discussed and ideally attached to jira as patches first. Correction, just for the sake of

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Michael Busch wrote: > Also, we're in review-and-commit process, not commit-and-review.  Changes > have to be > proposed, discussed and ideally attached to jira as patches first. Correction, just for the sake of avoiding future confusion (i.e. I'm not making any

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On 03/16/2010 09:05 AM, Andrzej Bialecki wrote: On 2010-03-16 12:29, Mark Miller wrote: From our perspective, we would have been just as happy with a branch on my local hard drive! That would have taken longer to setup though. You could have used git instead. There is a good integration betw

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On 2010-03-16 12:29, Mark Miller wrote: From our perspective, we would have been just as happy with a branch on my local hard drive! That would have taken longer to setup though. You could have used git instead. There is a good integration between git and svn, and it's much easier (a giant u

Re: lucene and solr trunk

My snap impression is that moving lucene to a sub-tree under SOLR would introduce some confusion in the minds of new folks looking at the code. *We* all know that Lucene stands by itself, but putting it under a solr makes that less obvious. I claim that there would be questions like "so can I just

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On Mar 16, 2010, at 3:51 AM, Michael Busch wrote: > On 3/16/10 12:43 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote:Me too. I don't have the time to > follow IRC in addition to jira and mailinglists. I know I've been missing > stuff, because in the past I commented on jira issues and later was told that > my que

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote: > One more thing which I wonder about even more is that this whole > merging happens so quickly for reasons I don't see right now. I don't > want to keep anybody from making progress but it appears like a rush > to me. By the way, the seri

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On 03/16/2010 07:05 AM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote: Wow, you guys are moving fast! Thats a good thing. IRC is fine if you want to discuss something quickly. But it has its limitations. For example, I cannot follow IRC most of the times because I'm in a different time zone. But I don't want t

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > On 03/16/2010 03:43 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote: > >> >> One more thing which I wonder about even more is that this whole >> merging happens so quickly for reasons I don't see right now. I don't >> want to keep anybody from making progress but i

Re: lucene and solr trunk

I think it like the 1st option best (lucene moves as subdir to solr's current trunk SVN path), but I don't feel strongly. This'd mean one could simply checkout lucene alone and do everything you can do today. But if you check out solr, you also get a full checkout of lucene, and solr's build.xml

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On 03/16/2010 03:43 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote: One more thing which I wonder about even more is that this whole merging happens so quickly for reasons I don't see right now. I don't want to keep anybody from making progress but it appears like a rush to me. Meh - I think your just plain wr

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Michael Busch wrote: > On 3/16/10 12:43 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote: >> >> If my impression should be wrong or if I miss something please ignore >> the last paragraph. > > I feel exactly like you, Simon. I don't understand the rush. Also, we're > in review-and-comm

RE: lucene and solr trunk

Hi, > And Lucene is on Java 1.5 and should be compiled with an 1.5 compiler, > where Solr seems to be on 1.6 since yesterday? (Yonik added something > to common-build.xml). On my development system I have no Java 1.6 > installed at all as default build, I ever use Java 1.5 for building > Lucene. I

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On 3/16/10 12:43 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote: If my impression should be wrong or if I miss something please ignore the last paragraph. I feel exactly like you, Simon. I don't understand the rush. Also, we're in review-and-commit process, not commit-and-review. Changes have to be propose

Re: lucene and solr trunk

I completely agree with Uwe and Hoss. These questions need to be addressed first. I still want to be able to only checkout Lucene code and run the Lucene build independently from Solr. And Lucene needs to be able to release without Solr and the branching/tagging needs to support that as Uwe

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > Hi all, > > I don't want to be against all other developers that voted +1 for the SVN > "merge", but I am not happy with it. Most importantly for the reasons Hoss > mentioned: > >> : prime-time as the new solr trunk!  Lucene and Solr need t

RE: lucene and solr trunk

Hi all, I don't want to be against all other developers that voted +1 for the SVN "merge", but I am not happy with it. Most importantly for the reasons Hoss mentioned: > : prime-time as the new solr trunk! Lucene and Solr need to move to a > : common trunk for a host of reasons, including sing

Re: lucene and solr trunk

: prime-time as the new solr trunk! Lucene and Solr need to move to a : common trunk for a host of reasons, including single patches that can : cover both, shared tags and branches, and shared test code w/o a test : jar. Without a clearer picture of how people envision development "overhead" wor

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Mark Miller wrote: >> >> Solr moves to Lucene's trunk: >>   /java/trunk, /java/trunk/sol > > +1. With the goal of merged dev, merged tests, this looks the best to me. > Simple to do patches that span both, simple to setup > Solr to use Lucene trunk rather than jar

Re: lucene and solr trunk

On 03/15/2010 11:28 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: So, we have a few options on where to put Solr's new trunk: Solr moves to Lucene's trunk: /java/trunk, /java/trunk/sol +1. With the goal of merged dev, merged tests, this looks the best to me. Simple to do patches that span both, simple to setup

lucene and solr trunk

Due to a tremendous amount of work by our newly merged committer corps, the get-on-lucene-trunk branch (branches/solr) is ready for prime-time as the new solr trunk! Lucene and Solr need to move to a common trunk for a host of reasons, including single patches that can cover both, shared tags and