+1 to add it to the primary Solr repo. On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 9:17 AM Jason Gerlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I don't think sandbox was intended originally to host ready modules with > a release process. > > Yeah, it's a bit handwave-y, but my understanding of "sandbox" was > that it was for more experimental code, which doesn't seem like it's > the case for the encryption stuff at this point? > > Even outside of the messaging or implications about experimental vs > production-readiness, the code would be easier to consume if it was > elsewhere. Sandbox is "just" a code repo, so consumers need to do > their own releases, compatibility testing (for their particular Solr > version), packaging or installing into Solr, etc. Moving it into the > main repo as a module would provide a lot of benefit to any potential > consumers. > > Anyway I'm +1 on the overall idea, as I understand it at least. But I > do have some feedback on the writeup/proposal: > > - if the "ask" at the heart of the SIP is to change where the code > lives, the writeup should spend a bit more time outlining why that's a > better path forward. What are the problems with keeping the code in > "sandbox"? What's the benefit to a potential user of having the code > in the main repo? (We've discussed some of those details already in > this thread, but it's still worth summarizing in the "Motivation" > section of the SIP) > > - I love the architecture docs in the current "Proposed Changes" > section! But the section spends so much time detailing the current > state of the code that it doesn't really talk much about what would > actually change. I get that this is mostly "just" a move, but there > will be changes I imagine: does the sandbox code require any changes > or updates to fit into the Solr "module" paradigm? is it already > building with Java 21? since it currently builds against Solr 9.9 in > sandbox does it need any particular changes to get it working against > the "main" branch? what sort of ref-guide documentation should be > added? etc. > > Best, > > Jason > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 5:56 AM Bruno Roustant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Thanks David. > > > > Yes, I'm proposing to discuss whether it should move to the main Solr > repo. > > In the current state, solr-sandbox seems dedicated to incubating modules. > > Actually, my main point is to say the encryption module should exit the > > incubation state, whether it stays in the sandbox or not. But if it stays > > there, there should be a clear way to differentiate "incubating" or > "ready" > > modules for external users. > > - If users want to have encryption for Solr (provided they have the right > > use-case, as described in the doc), they should have confidence they can > > use it. > > - To my knowledge, there is no section in the Solr doc that describes the > > modules in solr-sandbox. > > - Maybe a new module available should be announced in dev and user list. > > But it should wait for some feedback first I think. > > > > Technically, the sandbox is separate from the main repo, so many updates > > need to wait for the next Solr release: development is longer. > > And you are right, there is no test infra nor release process. I don't > > think sandbox was intended originally to host ready modules with a > release > > process. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
