Thank you everyone! I'll move forward with the cross-dc repo creation then as mentioned in the original email :)
If we want to change the approach on the repo, we can always change that before we release anything in the future. On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:32 AM Mike Drob <md...@apache.org> wrote: > I'm seeing valid reasons to prefer one solr sandbox repo, or prefer > multiple many repos for future plugins or integrations. In this specific > case, I think the relevant deciding points are 1) we don't have multiple > things yet, so deciding between a "mono-repo" and a "multi-repo" is not > very consequential 2) we can always rename things later 3) in the absence > of a strong reason otherwise i'll defer to the people doing the work (in > this case, Anshum). We considered sandbox and can always create one in the > future. If Anshum feels that solr-cross-dc is better for now than I'm fine > with that too. > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 5:07 PM David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org> wrote: > >> (palm-to-face) -- LOL okay sorry. I'm getting my threads crossed. >> >> A repo which holds multiple independent modules that can work with Solr >> need not release them all at once. >> >> ~ David Smiley >> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 4:48 PM Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> >> wrote: >> >>> David, this is about the Cross DC work that was supposed to be done :-) >>> >>> The independent release cadence is primarily the reason why a new repo >>> makes sense to me in this case. >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 1:24 PM David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Anshum Gupta >>> >> -- Anshum Gupta
