+1 As a module in monorepo it will get more testing and love. And can easily be moved elsewhere if we change our preferences down the road vs multi repo and packages.
Jan > 7. jan. 2026 kl. 07:11 skrev David Smiley <[email protected]>: > > +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] >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
