lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: Vote thread started on general@lucene.apache.org
Date Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:21:32 GMT

I was attempting to get things off the ground, but recieved little support from those familiar
with the apache foundation - how it works, procedures etc, so I basically stopped around thanksgiving.
 
I'm still around and interested in helping where I can though. (Just voicing my support so
people know I exist ;) )


~Prescott Nasser



 
> From: pierogitus@hotmail.com
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Vote thread started on general@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:18:13 -0800
> 
> I'm willing to be a committer as well.
> 
> I agree the entire porting process needs to be publicly documented and much
> of the dev effort (at least initially) will be in this area.
> 
> Alex
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lombard, Scott [mailto:slombard@KINGINDUSTRIES.COM] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 10:58 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Vote thread started on general@lucene.apache.org
> 
> Troy,
> 
> My feeling is that a combination Java and .Net experience is needed. Some
> people will focus on Bug fixes in the .Net code while other focus on the
> translation of the code as their experience allows.
> 
> One of the things I would like to see different with Lucene.Net is that the
> method conversion is kept in the SVN or Wiki. I feel the pre and post
> processing as well as possibly extensions to what ever tool that is used for
> the conversion are more important to this project then the actual executed
> code. Keeping a focus on making strong conversion tools as a community
> should help reduce the lag between a Java releases to a .Net releases. We
> then won't be waiting for one person to make the conversion.
> 
> Scott
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 1:38 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Vote thread started on general@lucene.apache.org
> 
> Scott,
> 
> I will gladly help put this proposal together and would like to volunteer as
> a committer. I am communicating with others to find some additional
> candidates to be committers.
> 
> Regarding Heath, a quote from his last message in this thread:
> 
> "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."
> 
> Thanks,
> Troy
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Lombard, Scott
> <slombard@kingindustries.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> 
> 
> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message