Based on the discussion on the committer meeting, I'll put in a request to create a solr sandbox repo.
Thank you everyone. On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 8:13 PM Noble Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm +1 for a top level sandbox repo. Anyone should be able create a > project in that. > > Once the project graduates out of the sandbox we should create a top level > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021, 11:30 AM Anshum Gupta <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Building this as a branch is an option, but building it outside in a >> personal repo is exactly what's not the Apache Way. >> >> Code should be designed and built in the Apache world, else it'd be a >> grant/donation and not really a PR. Also, you can't create a PR against a >> repo that doesn't exist upstream. >> >> Do you have an objection against a mono-repo i.e. solr-sandbox too? That >> would open the door for us to use this for similar purposes in the future, >> until the code is ready to be released. >> >> Also, just to reiterate, creating a repo doesn't cost anything and we >> aren't releasing anything. This is a placeholder to put the code in. If it >> works out well, we can release it or iterate on the code/implementation. In >> any case, it would have zero impact on the project itself. >> >> -Anshum >> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 3:37 PM Noble Paul <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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, <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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, < >>> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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, < >>> [email protected]> 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: >>> [email protected] (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: [email protected] >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Anshum Gupta >> > -- Anshum Gupta
