lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "George Aroush" <>
Subject RE: Committer status
Date Thu, 07 Aug 2008 02:03:28 GMT
Hi Everyone,

This may be my bad for not communicating clearly on this subject.

If you look back at my posting to Lucene.Net's mailing list, you will see
that when I announced 2.3.1 as "alpha", I also stated that anyone who wants
committership, this is their opportunity to do so.  So far, both DIGY and
Doug have shown their commitment and in my opinion, should be considered for
commitership vote.

The reason why I have not yet take action this is:

1) I wanted to wait till be have a release candidate of 2.3.1 before doing
so.  Why?  To see if other folks will also get involved.
2) I wanted those who are committing patches to gain the experience.

I have had private email exchanges with Doug and DIGY (with DIGY last year)
on this subject -- unless things changes, I believe both would like

Now that this subject came up, I don't see why we shouldn't start the
process -- both DIGY and Doug have shown their commitment and gained the

Doug, regarding "gate keeper", in my opinion, anyone who has committership
privilege, must be a gate keeper.  For me, the rules that I apply are as

1) Keep the Lucene index cross compatible.  That is, if I have a Java and a
C# application, they both _must_ be able to reading / writing to the same
index _concurrently_ (strong emphasize on "concurrently") without any
2) Keep the Lucene public APIs consistent between Java and C# Lucene.  That
is, all public, new, depreciated, etc. APIs in any ported release of Lucene
_must_ exist and behave consistently.

>From my perspective, the above two are very important -- this is what I
always watch for and refer to when I say "diverge".

Those are my opinion, as a diverse Lucene.Net community, we can agree /
disagree and it will be up to us to decide in what direction we take it.

In the next few days, I will start the voting process to nominate Doug and
DIGY for commitership privilege.


-- George

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Sale [] 
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 1:50 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Committer status
> Erik,
> Thanks.  I appreciate the support.  Of course I expect that 
> we should be put to a vote.  It is my understanding that all 
> decision-making, etc, should happen on public lists.  Thus, I 
> didn't feel that I should make my appeal to George privately.
> Doug
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Erik Hatcher 
> <>wrote:
> > Doug - that's a bit of an unconventional way to get commit 
> privileges 
> > to an Apache project.  George really should propose you, and Digy 
> > (though
> > separately) as committers, and then there is a vote.
> >
> > For the record, I'm +1 on you both joining this project as 
> committers 
> > though.
> >
> > George - at your discretion, please make an official VOTE 
> proposal for 
> > each.  I guess it's just George and I with binding votes here, but 
> > let's do it the usual way for posterity :)
> >
> >        Erik
> >
> >
> > On Aug 4, 2008, at 1:33 PM, Doug Sale wrote:
> >
> >  George,
> >>
> >> I am writing to request that Digy and I are made 
> committers as soon 
> >> as possible.  It is a practical matter.  Maintaining a separate 
> >> codebase locally and adding and removing patches is time-consuming 
> >> and error-prone when dealing with many deltas.  Especially, for 
> >> myself, considering that I have begun to port the changes from the 
> >> 2.3.2 release as well - it's a juggling act.  I bet that 
> we each have 
> >> a different version of the code on our local machines.  SVN access 
> >> will simplify this process, and we will all be assured of 
> working on 
> >> the latest code at any given time.  Your role as gatekeeper will 
> >> still apply, and any unwarranted commits may simply be rolled back.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Doug
> >>
> >
> >

View raw message