It's not an either-or. Yes Solr has too many old/deprecated items that aren't getting removed. Yes also many features ought to be in plugins that are opt-in (HDFS). Yes also many of us want to raise the peer-review bar for all the reasons peer reviews bring about better quality software.
BTW I don't think some sort of feature/improvement block is something we can agree to, but it's off-topic any way. Before raising other subjects, are you or anyone else uncomfortable with the proposed guidelines -- particularly anything *not* demarcated with [PENDING DISCUSSION] ? If so please respond with a suggestion on how I can improve it. ~ David Smiley Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 8:12 AM Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:02 PM Doug Turnbull < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> As more of a practioner/user of Solr, I would second a desire to have >> more review involved in what gets added. I am sometimes surprised at >> features that have gotten added with minimal review that feel fairly >> experimental or impact stability. I don't think it's anything against the >> people working on the features, as a sometimes contributor, I too have not >> fully thought out all the implications, big and small, of my desired >> changes. I have been rather impressed how much my contribution has improved >> when a committer (namely Mr. Smiley, who is an incredible human being) has >> helped review & shephard the change. >> > > I don't think this has anything to do with code review: it has to do with > people just piling in features, but not taking the time to do any > janitorial work or remove old features that shouldn't be there anymore (I > AM LOOKING AT YOU HDFS) > > Solr really must *remove features* from time to time, and then refactor > the code to remove any hacks those features brought in, like a normal > software project. > > So instead of adding a bunch of policy, it might be a better idea to > directly attack the problem of piling up features, maybe declare a > moratorium on new features for a while, remove some outdated ones, and do > some long overdue cleanup. >
