On Mar 25, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Robert Muir wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Mark Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >> Well, actually I think we should just make it completely unsupported. These >> are our dev tools - don't count on them for crap. No reason to exclude them >> from the src IMO. >> > > For the solr release, I think I could be ok with that (my concerns are > more that later someone will say, how did this eclipse stuff etc slip > into the release?). I know some people hesitated to add support for > IDEs for this reason, I was for it as I want to make contributions > easier, but I don't want us to look at it as making releasing harder. >
+1 > For the lucene release, I'm definitely against it: nothing in there > will work at all because the lucene release doesn't include the solr > bits. I know its been mentioned in this thread that maybe we should > look at a single source artifact for everything, I don't think we > should do this either. I do think we need standalone artifacts. So, I suppose if we do that, then we can't just svn export, b/c we would need to separate dev tools per project. But, then again, why can't we have: /dev-tools/ /lucene/dev-tools /solr/dev-tools The top level just creates IDE that includes the lower ones, but the lower ones can each be standalone. (This goes for the Maven stuff too). I realize, of course, this is work, so my suggestion would be we do 3.1 w/ it included as is and then fix in the next release. > > I think its important that lucene stays a standalone search engine > library from the artifact point of view, even if our development is in > sync with solr. > I agree. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
