On May 2, 2011, at 7:31 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: > > In short, I believe people should still contribute where they see they can > add the most value and according to their time schedules. Additionally, > others who have more time or the ability to refactor for reusability should > be free to do so as well. > > I agree that people should be able to contribute where they can; at the same > time as a single unified project (lucene+solr) I think there is an objective > 'right' place for things -- code designed to have maximum utility and > reusablity (minimum dependencies without sacrificing functionality). > > Starting things in the right place is often easier then refactoring later -- > that said, i don't think it should be a requirement as long as we all agree > that things can (and should) be moved to a more reusable place if someone is > willing to do the work. > > Thinking about the issue that triggered this debate... in SOLR-2272 (the > pseudo-join stuff), I think the heart of the problem was the idea that once > committed, this new feature could not be moved around. With this discussion, > I think we agree that it should be refactored if someone is willing to do the > work. It may even be reasonable for someone to mark it as > @lucene.experimental if there is serious concern about how hard it is to > refactor (and that person is planning to put in some effort to move things in > the right direction) > > ryan >
+1 - Mark Miller lucidimagination.com Lucene/Solr User Conference May 25-26, San Francisco www.lucenerevolution.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
