lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "George Aroush" <geo...@aroush.net>
Subject RE: Lucene 2.0.0 release available
Date Tue, 30 May 2006 20:48:46 GMT
Hi Jeff and all,

I was the central point because there was no one else and we needed a way to
coordinate the project.  With 1.3 and 1.4 when I asked for help, folks asked
which CS files they can take on and they delivered.  For 1.9 release, (which
by the way was first released back on May 26, 2005 -- yes, I did say "2005")
despite my repeated calls for help, non were made.  So I don't think people
were ready to jump in, they just weren't around, busy or lost interest; I
hope things will change now that Lucene.Net is at ASF but so far that hasn't
been the case so I am disappointed.

Now coming back to your suggestion of working on 2.0.  If you have the
cycles to review the 2.0 code base, why not put those cycles to finish off
1.9?  Anything that was fixed in Java's release of 1.9 must be fixed in
Lucene.Net 1.9 release -- in fact, I would suggest that we look at 1.9.1
release.  Beside, the Java release of 2.0 is just compliant with Java 5.0.
The value for us to have 1.9 (or 1.9.1) release is the support for .NET 1.1.
Not releasing 1.9 is like Java Lucene 1.9 not support Java 1.3 (did I got
the Java ver right?!)  In addition, keep in mind that Lucene.Net 1.9 isn't
that far off from being "final".  Thus, if we get 1.9 out, it shouldn't be
hard to get 2.0 out.

Best regards,

-- George Aroush


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:36 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org; ehatcher@apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene 2.0.0 release available

George -

I hear your concern about the 1.9 release not being finished.  I will take
point with you on the reason that it's so far behind the Java version.  It
wasn't until recently (February) that the code was posted (the Alpha
version).  The lists with Apache didn't come online until April.  Even as
such, the process of evaluating the code, finding a bug or improvement,
making a suggestion and returning it to the community has really been
nothing more than emailing you.  I know you're busy like all the rest of us,
but this process had to run directly through yourself for a very long time.
I frankly believe that many people were very ready to jump in and get the
thing rolling, but were frustrated at the process and the bottlenecks that
came with it and gave up.  Sour grapes to the community response because
you're now ready for participation is not the fault of the community.

However, that's not my reason for suggesting review of the 2.0 Java
codebase.  The fact of the matter is that the time difference between the
Java release and the C# port is growing.  The value in that time difference
is knowledge of known issues with the prior release (1.9) and how to deal
with it (fixes in 2.0).  The Java mailing list has already identified bugs
to be fixed with their release marked 2.0.  If there are bugs in the
1.9release of Java, chances are those same bugs will appear in the C# port.
The Java community has already worked those out, and I'd like to take
advantage of those improvements.  Additionally, looking at a C# port under
the 2.0 Framework has significant differences in things like threading and
exception handling, as well as taking advantage of performance improvements
like generics.

I will echo George's request to finish the 1.9 release.  I'm not sure
there's any value in the claim of a 1.9 release any more than a non-complete
1.9 release.  Nonetheless, I've received some offers to help review the
2.0release, and will respond to those people privately.

cheers,
jeff r.


On 5/29/06, George Aroush <george@aroush.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff and all,
>
> We must finish 1.9 before working on 2.0 otherwise, there is no 
> guaranty that 2.0 will not end up with the same fait as 1.9.
>
> Lets face it, 1.9 has been behind it's Java version release mainly 
> because
>
> despite my repeated call for help to finishing it off (even back at
> SourceForge.net) I have yet to receive any help.  For 1.9, unlike 1.3 
> and
> 1.4 releases, NO ONE, has stepped up and offered to help (except 
> recently for Eyal's compression code.)
>
> As you can tell, I am frustrated with this.  Because despite not 
> getting any help, I am getting private emails where folks asking me 
> that they want to become a committer on ASF for Lucene.Net -- when I 
> pointed them to http://incubator.apache.org/learn/newcommitters.html I 
> don't hear back!!
>
> So please folks, lets first finish off 1.9.  Take a look at the 
> current source code and comment on the lines that I have questions on.  
> Those are found by searching for the text "Aroush".
>
> This past weekend, I have finished the port of the Test code for 1.9 
> and it is running.  About 40% of the tests are failing and some were 
> due to bug in the 1.9 code and the others due to bug in the port of 
> the Test code.  In a day or two I will release code on ASF and again 
> will be asking for help to
>
> finish off 1.9.
>
> To sum-up, I don't support that we do any work on 2.0 until when we 
> have
> 1.9
> done, otherwise, not only will we have an incomplete 1.9 but 2.0 might 
> end up like 1.9, incomplete -- and thus, we will now have two 
> incomplete releases instead of one.
>
> 1.9 is very close to being "final" -- lets work together to finish it 
> off and use this opportunity to become a committer on ASF.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George Aroush
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 1:02 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Fwd: Lucene 2.0.0 release available
>
> Below is a recent message from the Java dev list for Lucene.  As it 
> states, this is mostly a bugfix release against the 1.9 code.
>
> The development path that's been suggested is that we develop the 
> 1.9release on the
> 1.1 Framework and that we would cut over to the 2.0 Framework with the 
> 2.0Lucene release.  I believe this is fine, but we need to begin 
> porting the Java 2.0 release soon.  The Java 1.9 release was 
> considered complete some time last fall.  The time divide between the 
> Java release and our C# port is growing and is getting longer.
>
> Not to take away from the 1.9 efforts on the 1.1 Framework, I'm going 
> to proceed on porting the Java 2.0 release to C# under the 2.0 
> Framework.  If there are a substantial number of bugfixes in the 2.0 
> release, we should make use of that as well.
>
> Questions or comments welcome.
>
> cheers,
> jeff r.
>
>
> ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
>
> Subject: Lucene 2.0.0 release available
> Date: Samstag 27 Mai 2006 05:57
> From: Doug Cutting <cutting@apache.org>
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> Release 2.0.0 of Lucene is now available from:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/lucene/java/
>
> This is mostly a bugfix release from release 1.9.1. Note however that 
> deprecated 1.x features have now been removed. Any code that compiles 
> against Lucene 1.9.1 without deprecation warnings should work without 
> further changes with any 2.x release.
>
> The detailed change log is at:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_2_0_0/CHANGES.
> txt
>
> Doug
>
>


Mime
View raw message