lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: RE: Vote thread started on general@lucene.apache.org
Date Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:22:22 GMT
Marco,

I agree with you on this front. I feel that the first tasks that a new
Lucene.Net team should focus on, in terms of development are:

- Fully automating a line-by-line port using a tool such as Sharpen.
This needs to become a commodity function requiring very little
development effort
- Bring the existing forks back in as branches within the ASF project.
I am very interested in pursuing continued development on a more .NET
style port (i.e. the Lucere project I started or Aimee.Net

The Lucene.Net project should be able to continue with both
development paths in the same project.

Thanks,
Troy




On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Marco Dissel <marco.dissel@gmail.com> wrote:
> What will be the goal of new committors? Convert the source into .net style
> code? If yes, we should try to stop will all the spin-offs and concentrate
> all the development in one project.
> Op 30 dec. 2010 19:02 schreef "Lombard, Scott" <slombard@kingindustries.com>
> het volgende:
>> Grant,
>>
>> Thanks for your time explaining all the details. I will be willing work on
> a proposal to put Lucene.Net back in to incubation. I will need other people
> to step up and be committers as well. Heath has volunteered and as Grant has
> stated 4 committers are needed to for incubation. Who else is willing to be
> a committer?
>>
>> Grant I will definitely be taking you up on your offer to help on bring
> Lucene.Net into incubation.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:32 PM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Vote thread started on general@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>> On Dec 30, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Heath Aldrich wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Grant,
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking the time to respond.
>>>
>>> While I have developed extensively against Lucene.net, I do not possess
> the java skills needed to do a port of the code... So, while I wouldn't mind
> being a committer, I do not think I am qualified. (I guess if I was, I could
> just use Lucene proper and that would be that)
>>>
>>> As to other duties of a committer, I think the ASF is perceived as a
> black box of questions for most of us.
>>>
>>> For one, I don't think anyone outside the 4 committers even understand
> *why* it is a good thing to be on the ASF vs. CodePlex, Sourceforge, etc.
> Maybe if there was an understanding of the why, the requirements of the ASF
> would make more sense. I think a lot of us right now just perceive the ASF
> as the group that is wanting to kill Lucene.net.
>>
>> I don't think we have a desire to kill it, I just think we are faced with
> the unfortunate reality that the project is already dead and now us on the
> PMC have the unfortunate job of cleaning up the mess as best we can. Again,
> it is not even that we want to see it go away, we on the PMC just don't want
> to be responsible for it's upkeep. You give me the names of 4 people who are
> willing to be committers (i.e. people willing to volunteer their time) and I
> will do my best to get the project into the Incubator. However, I have to
> tell you, my willingness to help is diminishing with every trip we take
> around this same circle of discussion.
>>
>> Simply put, given the way the vote has gone so far, the Lucene PMC is no
> longer interested in sustaining this project. If the community wishes to see
> it live at the ASF then one of you had better step up and spend 20-30
> minutes of your time writing up the draft proposal (most of it can be copied
> and pasted) and circulating it. In fact, given the amount of time some of
> you have no doubt spent writing on this and other related threads you could
> have put together the large majority of the proposal, circulated the draft
> and got other volunteers to help and already be moving forward in a positive
> direction. Truth be told, I would do it, but I am explicitly not going to
> because I think that if the community can't take that one step to move
> forward, then it truly doesn't deserve to.
>>
>>>
>>> I get your comments about the slower than slow development, but that is
> also somewhat of a sign that it works. While 2.9.2 may be behind, it seems
> very stable with very few issues. If we send the project to the attic, how
> will anyone be able to submit bugfixes ever? Frankly, I use 2.9.2 every day
> and have not found bugs in the areas that I use... but I'm sure they are in
> there somewhere.
>>>
>>> As for the name, I thought Lucene.net was the name of the project back in
> the SourceForge days...
>>> So my question is based on the premise that "if the lucene.net name was
> brought *to* ASF, why can the community not leave with it?"
>>
>> Again, IANAL, but just b/c it was improperly used beforehand does not mean
> it is legally owned by some other entity. The Lucene name has been at the
> ASF since 2001 and Lucene.NET is also now a part of the ASF. (If your
> interested, go look at the discussions around iBatis and the movement of
> that community to MyBatis)
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>>
>> This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the
>> use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may
>> contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or
>> constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient
>> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or
>> distribution of this message, or files associated with this message,
>> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
>> please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting
>> it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc.
>

Mime
View raw message