While I like the idea of a single (Apache!) repo for multiple packages/plugins, that does not apply to the Solr Operator, which isn't even in Java. It's too unique. So I agree with Anshum & others about creating an Apache repo for the Solr Operator.
I think the ship has sailed on the Solr Operator being an Apache project instead of some committer's pet project. ~ David Smiley Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:47 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not necessarily. Most people contribute to Apache Lucene/Solr using > external repositories (forks) and raise pull requests against Apache owned > repositories. There's no SGA needed on such occasions. > > I see two paths forward from here. > > a) Lets setup a single repository for all packages/plugins, say > lucene-solr-extras or lucene-solr-contribs or lucene-solr-sandbox etc., and > develop it there. > b) All development for this effort happens in an external repository ( > https://github.com/apple/solr-dc or https://github.com/anshumg/solr-dc) > and we raise a PR against Apache owned repository (which can be created if > needed once we are all onboard). > > What does everyone else think? > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 10:23 AM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote: > >> An external repository probably ends up requiring a software grant? I >> know there is a material difference between code originating externally and >> code originating within the umbrella of the ASF in terms of IP, copyright, >> or other legal status. >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 8:11 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> If all we need now is a place to commit a PoC for now (and something >>> like sandbox repo or contribs won't suffice), why can't we have a separate >>> repository in GitHub outside Apache and merge into an Apache repository >>> only once the code takes reasonable shape? >>> >>> On Fri, 8 Jan, 2021, 2:31 am Anshum Gupta, <ans...@anshumgupta.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for the feedback, Mike. >>>> >>>> I like the idea of the sandbox, but that might be restricting when we >>>> want to work on more than one repos. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure if that would happen in the near future, but as we can >>>> always discard the repo and it doesn't really come at a cost, I don't see a >>>> problem with having a repo created for this specific reason. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 12:45 PM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm not sure where I sit on this, going to start typing things and >>>>> then hopefully I'll reach a conclusion by the end. >>>>> >>>>> This definitely needs to be outside of the core solr repo so that it >>>>> can be versioned and released independently. And I disagree with Ishan >>>>> about the consequence of abandoning the repository - if we realize that >>>>> it's a bad direction then we can pivot, but we shouldn't let a fear of the >>>>> unknown stop us from doing it in the first place. >>>>> >>>>> However, if all we need right now is a place to commit code that is >>>>> WIP, then what we really want is a sandbox to play with, and not >>>>> necessarily a strongly directed repo. Lucene has a sandbox in the main >>>>> code. We could similarly start this under Solr contrib and move it out >>>>> before an actual release of 9x happens. Or maybe we start with a >>>>> [lucene-]solr-sandbox repository that we can throw all sorts of stuff into >>>>> and then when components are mature enough they get to graduate into their >>>>> own repo? >>>>> >>>>> Mike >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:32 PM Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I understand your concern, but this is the placeholder for where the >>>>>> code would be, not what the code would look like. >>>>>> >>>>>> Considering we agreed to do this in a repository outside of the core, >>>>>> I believe this is a good place to start. The idea that the release >>>>>> cadence >>>>>> for the cross-dc effort should be different from that of core is an >>>>>> argument in favor of this approach, but I'm happy to talk more about it. >>>>>> I just thought that based on the original email, folks were on-board >>>>>> with the idea of this being outside of core Solr artifact/release. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:06 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < >>>>>> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> -1 on this. Without finalizing on the shape of how the solution will >>>>>>> look like, I don't think we should start a repository: it would be bad >>>>>>> if >>>>>>> we have to abandon the repository of our approach changes (say we want >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> keep it tightly integrated inside Solr). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan, 2021, 11:45 pm Anshum Gupta, <ans...@anshumgupta.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Inline with my earlier email, I'll be requesting a new repository >>>>>>>> to host the cross-dc work. Please let me know if you have any >>>>>>>> questions or >>>>>>>> concerns. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Repository name: *solr-crossdc >>>>>>>> *Generated name:* lucene-solr-crossdc.git (that's auto-generated, >>>>>>>> so can't remove the TLP prefix) >>>>>>>> *Commit notification list:* commits-cros...@lucene.apache.org (I >>>>>>>> think it makes sense for these commit notifications to go to a new >>>>>>>> list, >>>>>>>> but I'm open to reusing the old one) >>>>>>>> *GitHub notification list:* dev@lucene.apache.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'll be submitting a request for the same later in the day today if >>>>>>>> there are no concerns. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Anshum Gupta >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Anshum Gupta >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Anshum Gupta >>>> >>>
