Alight, so we have implemented Hoss' suggestion here on the lucene/solr
merged dev branch at lucene/solr/branches/newtrunk.
Feel free to check it out and give some feedback.
We also roughly have Solr running on Lucene trunk - eg compiling Solr
will first compile lucene and run off those
roughly have Solr running on Lucene trunk - eg compiling Solr will
first compile lucene and run off those compiled class files. Running dist or
example in Solr will grab Lucene's jars and put them in the war. This still
needs further love, but it works.
There is also a top level build.xml with two
+1 for this structure and this set of steps.
Otis
- Original Message
From: Chris Hostetter hossman_luc...@fucit.org
To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 6:46:19 PM
Subject: Re: lucene and solr trunk
: Otis, yes, I think so, eventually. But that's gonna
@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 6:46:19 PM
Subject: Re: lucene and solr trunk
: Otis, yes, I think so, eventually. But that's gonna take much more
discussion.
:
: I don't think this initial cutover should try to solve
how modules
: will be organized, yet... we'll get
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
Git, Maven, Hg, etc., all sound great for the future, but let's focus
now on the baby step (how to re-org svn), today, so we can land the
Solr upgrade work now being done on a branch...
I agree.
Another
Okay, so this looks good to me (a few others seemed to like it - though
Lucene-Dev was somehow dropped earlier) - lets try this out on the
branch? (then we can get rid of that horrible branch name ;) )
Anyone on the current branch object to having to do a quick svn switch?
On 03/16/2010 06:46
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, so this looks good to me (a few others seemed to like it - though
Lucene-Dev was somehow dropped earlier) - lets try this out on the branch?
(then we can get rid of that horrible branch name ;) )
Anyone on the
On 03/17/2010 12:46 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Mark Millermarkrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, so this looks good to me (a few others seemed to like it - though
Lucene-Dev was somehow dropped earlier) - lets try this out on the branch?
(then we can get rid of
: Okay, so this looks good to me (a few others seemed to like it - though
: Lucene-Dev was somehow dropped earlier) - lets try this out on the branch?
It's the hassle of cross posting, really easy for someone to not reply to
all (especailly since i think all of the ASF lists rewrite the Reply-To
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
markrmil...@gmail.com
To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Mon, March 15, 2010 11:43:48 PM
Subject: Re: lucene and solr trunk
On 03/15/2010 11:28 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
So, we have a few options on
where to put Solr's new trunk:
Solr moves to Lucene's
trunk:
/java/trunk, /java/trunk
markrmil...@gmail.com
To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Mon, March 15, 2010 11:43:48 PM
Subject: Re: lucene and solr trunk
On 03/15/2010 11:28 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
So, we have a few options on
where to put Solr's new trunk:
Solr moves to Lucene's
trunk:
/java/trunk, /java/trunk
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Otis Gospodnetic
otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
Check out the dir structure mentioned here:
http://markmail.org/message/gwpmaevw7tavqqge
Isn't that what we want?
I'm totally down with this structure, personally. Not that I matter. :)
-jake
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 02:57:33PM -0700, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
Check out the dir structure mentioned here:
http://markmail.org/message/gwpmaevw7tavqqge
Isn't that what we want?
I think the downside of that hierarchy is that you will need the modules
directory if you're working on Lucene,
: Otis, yes, I think so, eventually. But that's gonna take much more
discussion.
:
: I don't think this initial cutover should try to solve how modules
: will be organized, yet... we'll get there, eventually.
But we should at least consider it, and not move in a direction that's
distinct from
On 03/16/2010 06:46 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
Here's my concrete suggestion that could be done today
+1
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.orgwrote:
: Otis, yes, I think so, eventually. But that's gonna take much more
discussion.
:
: I don't think this initial cutover should try to solve how modules
: will be organized, yet... we'll get there, eventually.
Due to a tremendous amount of work by our newly merged committer
corps, the get-on-lucene-trunk branch (branches/solr) is ready for
prime-time as the new solr trunk! Lucene and Solr need to move to a
common trunk for a host of reasons, including single patches that can
cover both, shared tags
Solr to use Lucene trunk rather than jars. Short paths. Simple. I like it.
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
Solr moves to Lucene's trunk:
/java/trunk, /java/trunk/sol
+1. With the goal of merged dev, merged tests, this looks the best to me.
Simple to do patches that span both, simple to setup
Solr to use Lucene trunk
: prime-time as the new solr trunk! Lucene and Solr need to move to a
: common trunk for a host of reasons, including single patches that can
: cover both, shared tags and branches, and shared test code w/o a test
: jar.
Without a clearer picture of how people envision development overhead
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
4) should it be possible for people to check out Lucene-Java w/o
checking out Solr?
(i suspect a whole lot of people who only care about the core library are
going to really adamantly not want to have to check
: (i suspect a whole lot of people who only care about the core library are
: going to really adamantly not want to have to check out all of Solr just
: to work on the core)
:
: This wouldn't really be merged development now would it?
: When I run 'ant test' I want the Solr tests to run, too.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
And as a committer, you should be concerned about things like this ...
that doesn't mean every user of Lucene-Java who wants to build from source
or apply their own local patches is going to feel the same way.
Hi Hoss,
: (i suspect a whole lot of people who only care about the core library are
: going to really adamantly not want to have to check out all of Solr just
: to work on the core)
:
: This wouldn't really be merged development now would it?
: When I run 'ant test' I want the Solr
: Yep, those users probably already hate our backwards tests and the
: contrib tests too.
probably ... which is just another reason why it probably makes sense
sense to move core stuff from Lucene-Java into it's own module along
side solr, and other modules that get refactored out of Solr or
26 matches
Mail list logo
