Found 90,590 results in 0.125 seconds. Displaying page 10 of 9,059, sorted by
Sent 2010-03-09 by Ryan McKinley <ryantxu@...>
I'm still trying to grok the different points of view and apparent
(mis?) perceptions on what everyone is saying.
Going back to the beginning, the basic problem is that code is
duplicated between solr and lucene and fixing that is difficult with
the current structure.
There is no intention "mer...
Sent 2010-03-09 by Shalin Shekhar Mangar <shalinmangar@...>
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
> Mike's call for a VOTE (amongst lucene/solr committers +11 to -1):
>
> http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/a400ffe62ae21aca/vote_merge_the_development_of_solr_lucene_take_2#22d7cd086d9c5cf0
> > Subject: Me...
Sent 2010-03-09 by Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@...>
This logic escapes me.
Nutch hatched Hadoop. Hadoop was perceived to be of much broader utility
than just for nutch so it was made more general and a separate project was
formed. Hadoop does not depend on Nutch.
Lucene existed. Solr was built to make it easier to use Lucene. The
developers ...
Sent 2010-03-09 by Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@...>
There are scads of features of Lucene that are not useful for all
applications (payloads, for one example, back compatibility for another).
The point is that the option to use faceting or not would be *very* useful
for all search applications. Power is good, especially since somebody else
has d...
Sent 2010-03-09 by Dennis Kubes <kubes@...>
I believe this is a question of identity. What is Lucene?
IMO Lucene is a full text search library, that is it's purpose. It
isn't trying to be a search server or a search engine. It is easy to
include as a library and is used on everything from embedded servers to
www search engines.
Quo...
Sent 2010-03-09 by Mark Miller <markrmiller@...>
Frankly, if you guys insist, we could drop the modularize point and take
yet another vote. If that's going to be your veto toehold, we don't need
it cluttering things up. Modularizing Lucene doesn't need to be in there
(though it already is somewhat modularized, and people plan to work
furthe...
Sent 2010-03-09 by Mark Miller <markrmiller@...>
Hey Chris,
see my response to Michael.
But quickly,
the first star is not a code change. Its procedural.
the second star, and I'm sure youll have arguments with this :), is not
something we are specifically voting on. The reason we are merging dev
is obviously so that those changes can occu...
Sent 2010-03-09 by Mark Miller <markrmiller@...>
Just to clarify - reading back, I see Mike put some examples of what
could be pulled into Lucene core - I personally don't see that as a
binding part of the vote - they are what we hope to do and are examples
of things that are not controversial. I think quite obviously, anything
after the me...
Sent 2010-03-09 by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <chris.a.mattmann@...>
On 3/8/10 9:26 PM, "Mark Miller" wrote:
> Also, we have decided on no code restructurings - the hope is to allow
> them (and in the past you have championed some of the ones we hope to
> see), but there are no restructurings that are part of the vote.
Ummm, that's not tr...
Sent 2010-03-09 by Mark Miller <markrmiller@...>
On 03/09/2010 12:14 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
> On 3/8/10 8:24 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> I don't think any of it's a showstopper,
>
> I'm surprised here after reading the Apache voting page. This proposal
> contains points that involve code restructurings.
The veto is reserved for "code mod...
