lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeff Rodenburg" <jeff.rodenb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Lucene 2.0.0 release available
Date Wed, 31 May 2006 04:21:53 GMT
I understand your frustration, but if the community is not reaching out to
participate, then the approach needs to improve.  I'm certain the ASF can
help, but the logistical stuff has to be there.  For example, we need the
code base under version control and the how for participation needs to be
spelled out.  I'm not an open source community guru, but my participation on
other projects has certainly increased because I understood what I could do
and how to go about it.  Right now, our sales pitch consists of "please
help" and it's not moving anyone to action.  Just a suggestion, but maybe a
more granular list of what's needed to finish 1.9 might improve
participation.

As for my own participation, I have cycles to put into review, but not with
the 1.1 Framework.  I have other projects that rely on Lucene.Net and those
projects use the 2.0 Framework, so strictly speaking for myself, I have an
interest in that side of the equation.  It doesn't help the crowd with the
1.9 release, but neither does the 1.9 release help me in my short-term
needs.  I've run the 1.4.3 version of Lucene.Net under both the
1.1Framework and the
2.0 Framework, and the differences just in the Framework code are not
insubstantial.

It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing, top-down directive approach.  For
as many people as there are on the 1.1 Framework, I've talked to plenty
others who have migrated to the 2.0 Framework.  For us, the sooner we can
get the latest release up and running, the better.

So as to not dissuade attention from the 1.9 release, I'll keep any
conversation about the 2.0 release and the 2.0 Framework off the list.

cheers,
jeff r.


On 5/30/06, George Aroush <george@aroush.net> wrote:
>
> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message