Troy, et al,

Given the recent positive shift in attitude regarding the Lucene.Net project, I would like to consider ways that I could help contribute as well. As with other people in the community, while my company is very small (I am both Chief Software Architect and Chief Bottle Washer), we do a have a vested interest in seeing this project succeed.

One thing to consider while developing the incubator proposal is that the reason I stopped attempting to contribute was that very early on it was made very clear to me that this project was a one-man show and that any efforts I offered towards working on the port were not welcome. I think that in order to succeed the new proposal needs to embrace transparency in the entire port, testing and fix process so that more people (and potential committers) can have the opportunity to get their hands dirty and expect that their ideas will not be rejected out of hand. I'm not saying that everyone should be a committer but rather I would hope that the committers would at least consider input and help from the community.

It's important to remember that Lucene.Net is "just" a (very good) line-by-line port*. This means that the skill set we need from committers is very different than what the Lucene Java project would be looking for. I agree with various people who have raised the good point that automation is the way to go for the initial pass. There are now multiple OSS Java->.NET conversion tools out there that while not perfect could offer a good starting point. The strength of working to customize scripts or even the tools themselves would be a repeatable and documented porting process that could be executed in parallel by multiple people with the expectation of deterministic results.

    Sharpen (db40): http://developer.db4o.com/Blogs/Product/tabid/167/entryid/94/Default.aspx
    Java 2 CSharp (ILOG/IBM): http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/j2cstranslator/index.php?title=Main_Page

* Various spin-offs are embracing a functional port model but this is not what I am looking for and I get the feeling that some developers would prefer to stick with a "true" port as well.

Also remember that we would need not only people to work on the porting mechanism and port but also people willing to develop and run the unit tests and such.

In summary, I believe that if we can agree as a community to get away from this magic one-man black-box porting model then more people such as myself would come out of the woodwork and help out.

My way is not the only way but it does represent my personal thoughts in any case.

Thanks for your consideration,
Ben Martz

Troy Howard
December 30, 2010 11:51 AM

Scott,

We should communicate on the public list as much as possible. I'll put
together the draft proposal today, post it here, and ask for feedback
from both the Lucene PMC and the community. We will wait over the
weekend and Monday to allow people who might have additional input the
opportunity to either see this at home or at work.

On Tuesday (Jan 4th) we will move forward with whatever our best
effort has produced and go from there.

Thanks,
Troy