My snap impression is that moving lucene to a sub-tree under SOLR would introduce some confusion in the minds of new folks looking at the code. *We* all know that Lucene stands by itself, but putting it under a solr makes that less obvious. I claim that there would be questions like "so can I just use Lucene without SOLR?".
That said, the questions about release management, branching, tagging, etc. take complete precedence over minor confusion when the answer is "just go to directory X and checkout if you want Lucene only". FWIW Erick On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Simon Willnauer > <simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > One more thing which I wonder about even more is that this whole > > merging happens so quickly for reasons I don't see right now. I don't > > want to keep anybody from making progress but it appears like a rush > > to me. > > > By the way, the serious changes we applied to the branch, most of them > have been sitting in JIRA over 3 months not doing much: SOLR-1659 > > if you follow the linked issues, you can see all the stuff that got > put in the branch... the branch was helpful for me, as I could help > Mark with the "ton of little things", like TokenStreams embedded > inside JSP files :) > > As its just a branch, if you want to go look at those patches > (especially anything I did) and provide technical feedback, that would > be great! > > But I think its a mistake to say things are rushed when the work has > been done for months. > > -- > Robert Muir > rcm...@gmail.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
