I feel this is placing the cart before the horse. We can always build this as a branch or a repo under your own account. Once we reach a point where the project is reasonably mature, you can create a repo and contribute it upstream.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 6:27 AM Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote: > > I understand what you are saying, which is also my reason to not have a > mono-repo. This way it's easier to manage and drop a repository when it's not > needed. It doesn't cause clutter and lives in isolation. > > I think we are on the same page in terms of the intention. > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:51 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya > <ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Look at the branches that are cluttering up our main repository, many >> symbolic of unfinished work. If we start one repo each for everything we >> hope to finish, we'll make Solr annoying in a new way. >> >> There is no reason multiple artifacts can't be released independently from >> the same repo. Why are you opposed to that idea, Anshum? >> >> On Tue, 12 Jan, 2021, 11:53 pm Anshum Gupta, <ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote: >>> >>> 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 > > > > -- > Anshum Gupta -- ----------------------------------------------------- Noble Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
