atom feed44 messages in org.apache.lucene.solr-devRe: rough outline of where Solr's going
FromSent OnAttachments
Yonik SeeleyMar 16, 2010 8:00 am 
Yonik SeeleyMar 16, 2010 8:05 am 
Grant IngersollMar 16, 2010 8:45 am 
Yonik SeeleyMar 16, 2010 8:51 am 
Yonik SeeleyMar 16, 2010 8:59 am 
Bill AuMar 16, 2010 10:14 am 
Chris HostetterMar 16, 2010 10:47 am 
Kevin OsbornMar 16, 2010 10:56 am 
Ted DunningMar 16, 2010 11:03 am 
Yonik SeeleyMar 16, 2010 11:13 am 
Chris HostetterMar 16, 2010 11:24 am 
Yonik SeeleyMar 16, 2010 5:26 pm 
Chris HostetterMar 17, 2010 5:15 pm 
Yonik SeeleyMar 17, 2010 5:31 pm 
Chris HostetterMar 17, 2010 5:37 pm 
Grant IngersollMar 17, 2010 6:16 pm 
Yonik SeeleyMar 17, 2010 6:41 pm 
Mattmann, Chris A (388J)Mar 17, 2010 8:48 pm 
Robert MuirMar 17, 2010 9:23 pm 
Grant IngersollMar 18, 2010 5:50 am 
Marvin HumphreyMar 18, 2010 6:19 am 
Michael McCandlessMar 18, 2010 8:32 am 
Robert MuirMar 18, 2010 9:26 am 
Michael McCandlessMar 18, 2010 10:12 am 
Yonik SeeleyMar 18, 2010 10:28 am 
Chris HostetterMar 18, 2010 11:01 am 
Yonik SeeleyMar 18, 2010 11:05 am 
Robert MuirMar 18, 2010 11:05 am 
Chris HostetterMar 18, 2010 11:15 am 
Yonik SeeleyMar 18, 2010 11:24 am 
Grant IngersollMar 18, 2010 11:33 am 
Chris HostetterMar 18, 2010 11:35 am 
Yonik SeeleyMar 18, 2010 11:40 am 
Chris HostetterMar 18, 2010 11:49 am 
Yonik SeeleyMar 18, 2010 11:55 am 
Mark MillerMar 18, 2010 11:58 am 
Mattmann, Chris A (388J)Mar 18, 2010 12:44 pm 
Mattmann, Chris A (388J)Mar 18, 2010 12:45 pm 
Lukáš VlčekMar 18, 2010 1:06 pm 
Grant IngersollMar 18, 2010 1:57 pm 
Chris HostetterMar 18, 2010 6:26 pm 
Mark MillerMar 18, 2010 6:35 pm 
Mattmann, Chris A (388J)Mar 18, 2010 6:44 pm 
Ryan McKinleyMar 21, 2010 8:54 pm 
Subject:Re: rough outline of where Solr's going
From:Yonik Seeley (yon@apache.org)
Date:Mar 16, 2010 8:59:37 am
List:org.apache.lucene.solr-dev

One more addition: - Consider a different wiki... our current style will serve us poorly across major version bumps esp. We need versioning. A different option could include moving more documentation onto the website, where it would be versioned. Getting something easy to edit/change would be the key there.... we don't have that currently.

-Yonik

another minor addition:  - move to Junti4 for new tests... and some old tests might be migrated (for speed issues)

I already have a SolrTestCaseJ4 that extends LuceneTestCase4J that avoids spinning up a solr core for each test method... but I need to be able to reference  LuceneTestCase4J from the lucene sources (i.e it works in the IDE, but not on the command line right now).

-Yonik

Here is a very rough list of what makes sense to me: - since lucene is on a new major version, the next solr release containing that sould have a new major version number  - this does not preclude further releases on 1.x  - for simplicity, and the "single dev" model, we should just sync with lucene's... i.e. the next major Solr version would be 3.1 - branches/solr would become the new trunk, with a shared trunk with lucene in some structure (see other thread) - solr cloud branch gets merged in - we move to Java6 (Java5 has already been EOLd by Sun unless you pay money... and we need Java6 for zookeeper, scripting) - remove deprecations (finally!), and perhaps some additional cleanups that we've wanted to do

-Yonik