On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Yonik Seeley <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Yonik Seeley > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Robert Muir (JIRA) <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I don't really think things like this (queries etc) should go into just Solr >> >> I disagree strongly with the sentiment that queries don't belong in Solr. >> Everything developed in/for lucene need not be exported to Solr immediately. >> Everything developed in/for solr need not be exported to Lucene immediately. >> >> If the work has been done, and the patch works for Solr, that should >> be enough. Period. > > This is an important enough point that I'm going to follow it up with > a quote from Mike: > > "The combined dev community would have no requirement/expectation that > if someone adds something cool to Lucene they must also expose it in > Solr. There will still be devs that wear mostly Solr vs most Lucene > hats. There will also be devs that comfortably wear both. There will > be devs that focus on analyzers and do amazing things ;)" > > We merged to *enable* moving code around easier, not to mandate it. > It is wrong to object to a patch because someone hasn't done extra > work with their solr hat on to enable it's use in solr. > It is wrong to object to a patch because someone hasn't done extra > work with their lucene hat on enable it's use in lucene. > > > With that out of the way, let's get more specific: what "Query" in > this patch should be moved, and to where? >
No, the question is: what justification is there for adding spatial support to solr-only, leaving lucene with a broken contrib module, versus adding it where it belongs and exposing it to solr? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
