On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Chris Hostetter <hossman_luc...@fucit.org> wrote: > > : just a few words. I disagree here with you hoss IMO the suggestion to > : merge JIRA would help to move us closer together and help close the > : gap between Solr and Lucene. I think we need to start identifying us > : with what we work on. It feels like we don't do that today and we > : should work hard to stop that and make hard breaks that might hurt but > > I just don't see how you think that would help anything ... we still need > to distinguish Jira issues to identify where in the "stack" they affect. > > If there is a "divide" among the developers because of the niches where > they tend to work, will that divide magicly go away because we partition > all issues using the "component" feature of instead of by the Jira > "project" feature? > > I don't really see how that makes any sense. > > Even if we all thought it did, and even if the cost/effort of > migrating/converting were totally free, the user bases (who interact with > the Solr APIs vs directly using the Lucene-Core/Module APIs) are so > distinct that I genuinely think sticking with distinct Jira "Projects" > makes more sense for our users. > > : JIRA. I'd go even further and nuke the name entirely and call > : everything lucene - I know not many folks like the idea and it might > : take a while to bake in but I think for us (PMC / Committers) and the > > "Everything" already is called Lucene ... the Project is "Apache Lucene" > the community is "Lucene" ... the Lucene project currently releases > several products, and one of them is called "Apache Solr" ... if you're > suggestion that we should ultimately elimianate the name "Solr" then we'd > still have to decide what we're going going to call that end product, the > artifact that we ship that provides the abstraction layer that Solr > currently provides. > > Even if you mean to suggest that we should only have one unified product > -- one singular release artifact -- that abstraction layer still needs a > name. The name we have now is "Solr", it has brand awareness and a user > base who understands what it means to say they are "Installing Solr" or > that a new feature is available when "Using Solr" > > Eliminating that name doesn't seem like it would benefit the user > community in anyway.
What I was saying / trying to say is that we as the community should move closer together. In all our minds, especially in the users mind Solr is a Project and Lucene is a Project. If we'd start over I would propose something like Lucene-httpd or something similar. But don't get me wrong I just went one step further than Shai since I think his idea made sense. I don't think all that would be a big issue to users - they use the http interface and they don't give a shit if its called solr or not. For us I think it makes a big difference. In our minds though. I agree with you that solr is a product and lucene is the project but we should enforce this. Like all namespaces say o.a.solr not o.a.lucene.solr so it implies we are two projects which is not true. I am not sure how we should proceed here but to change our minds we must change facts. Just my opinion. simon > > > > -Hoss > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
