Doug Cutting wrote:
> Garrett Rooney wrote:
>> Actually, currently we've got both lucene4c and java commits going to
>> commits@luce..., and there was some talk of just leaving it
>> that way, since it isn't that much traffic and it encourages people to
>> keep an eye on what's going on in other languages.
> I think that's a bad idea. Once there are lots of commits folks will
> start unsubscribing or ignoring things. Personally I only want to see
> commits for projects that I'm actively contributing to. I don't
> anticipate I'll be comitting to lucene4c, so I don't feel the need to
> track it on a commit-by-commit level. I do anticipate I'll make commits
> to Lucene Java, and try to carefully read every commit message for this
> project. Yes, I could set up filters so that I only see the commits I
> like, but I'd much prefer these were simply separate mailing lists. Soon
> we hope to have Nutch under Lucene's umbrella. Do you and Erik really
> want to see all of the Nutch commits in your inbox?
I don't personally object to seeing all the Nutch commits, but I can see
how people would, so I don't object to splitting up the lists if thats
what others want to do.
> http://www.mail-archive.com/nutch-cvs%40lists.sourceforge.net/ >
> We keep running into this same confusion: I think that the Lucene TLP
> should be setup primarily as a container of sub-projects. Jakarta
> Lucene is the first of these and Lucene4c is the second. We don't
> intend to merge Jakarta Lucene and Lucene4c into a single project, with
> the single set of developers, building a single download. So each
> component of Jakarta Lucene should be moved to a sub-component of Lucene
> TLP, not to a top-level component. This is the case for bug databases,
> mailing lists, web sites, etc. across the board. Do we disagree on this?