Let's keep it simple. Let's vote for option B (i.e. shelve 2.0), if most people are in favour then we don't need to look into other options at all. If not, we'll see what alternatives or arguments come up and vote on these later.
I assume that only PMC votes will be binding and the majority takes it? Julien On 16 September 2011 22:30, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) < chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > Why don't we just collect VOTEs for each of the options a-e, and then > figure out based on that if there is a majority. If there's no majority, we > can widdle it down to say the top 2-3, and then VOTE on those, looking > for majority again. > > Cheers, > Chris > > On Sep 16, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Markus Jelsma wrote: > > > Option B) Shelve trunk in a branch and promote 1.4 to trunk. We can > always > > choose to hardwire HBASE (option D) later. > > > > Markus > > > >> Am happy to call for a vote on the future of Nutch 2.0 if you want. > Shall > >> we reduce the various options described before to a single one? > >> > >> Julien > >> > >> On 15 September 2011 19:55, Markus Jelsma <markus.jel...@openindex.io > >wrote: > >>>> Hi Guys, > >>>> > >>>> I thought I'd chime in on this thread. My comments below: > >>>>> I understand and share your frustration, however you need to bear in > >>> > >>> mind > >>> > >>>>> that things are done only if people volunteer and have time - usually > >>>>> taken from their holiday, weekends, evenings. Chris (who is the de > >>> > >>> facto > >>> > >>>>> release master for Nutch and Gora) has not had the time and nobody > >>>>> else has volunteered to do it. > >>>> > >>>> Yep I haven't had the time to push a Gora 0.1.1-incubating release > that > >>>> will address the Maven issues. However it is on my roadmap for open > >>> > >>> source > >>> > >>>> stuff to get done in the next month, so that's a good thing. But yes, > >>> > >>> that > >>> > >>>> portion of my open source work is all volunteer time, so sometimes > >>>> other things take priority. > >>>> > >>>>>> As it happens, yesterday was the 1 year anniversary of the last > >>>>>> successful Hudson/Jenkins build... If that actually worked, we > >>>>>> could point people towards it as a useful recipe for how to get a > >>>>>> build working off trunk. I haven't been following Nutch too > >>>>>> closely, but it always strikes me as really odd, that there's a > >>>>>> nightly build and it doesn't bother anybody that it fails all the > >>>>>> time (and that there isn't a nightly build for the stable > >>>>>> branches). > >>>>> > >>>>> The real issue behind all this is what we should do with Nutch 2.0. > >>> > >>> What > >>> > >>>>> follows is only my opinion and I would love to hear what others have > >>>>> to say on this subject. > >>>>> > >>>>> Since we (actually mostly Dogacan) wrote 2.0 and delegated the > >>>>> storage > >>> > >>> to > >>> > >>>>> Gora, the latter hasn't really taken off since incubation. There have > >>>>> been some modest contributions to it but it does not seem to be used > >>>>> much and there is virtually nothing happening on it in terms of > >>>>> development. More worryingly, the people who initially contributed to > >>> > >>> it > >>> > >>>>> are not very active on the project (such is life, new jobs, different > >>>>> projects, etc...) anymore·. As for Nutch 2.0, it hasn't made any > >>>>> progress in the last 12 months : we still have the same bugs, the > >>> > >>> tests > >>> > >>>>> do not work, the build has to be done manually etc... > >>>> > >>>> Yep. > >>>> > >>>>> At the same time, there has been a new lease of life into Nutch as a > >>>>> whole : there is definitely more activity on the mailing lists, new > >>>>> users, new active committers etc... and quite a few bugfixes and > >>>>> improvements - most of them backported from what had been done in the > >>>>> trunk and people seem fairly happy with what we can do with 1.4 > >>>> > >>>> Totally agreed. I'm actually not super surprised -- ever since 1.1, I > >>> > >>> kind > >>> > >>>> of felt that maintaining a stable 1.X branch of Nutch (in parallel to > >>>> the 2.0 efforts) was really going to pay off since there was renewed > >>>> interest from users in leveraging (and furthermore accepting) the > >>>> nuances of 1.X. > >>>> > >>>>> So the question is : what shall we do with 2.0? Here are a few > >>>>> possibilities > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> a) put some effort into it, fix the bugs and make so that it can be > >>> > >>> used > >>> > >>>>> instead of 1.x > >>>>> b) shelve it and leave it for enthusiasts to play with + make 1.x the > >>>>> trunk again > >>>>> c) do nothing : keep 2.0 and 1.x in parallel (but having to maintain > >>> > >>> two > >>> > >>>>> branches is quite a pain) > >>>>> d) abandon the idea of a neutral storage layer with Gora and hardwire > >>> > >>> it > >>> > >>>>> to e.g. HBase > >>>>> > >>>>> Option (a) has not happened in the last 12 months and I am not very > >>>>> hopeful about it. > >>>>> > >>>>> What do you guys think? > >>>> > >>>> I'd suggest an option e). Evolve and keep releasing 1.X over the next > 6 > >>>> months, and keep 2.0 in the trunk. After 6 months, see how close 1.X > is > >>> > >>> to > >>> > >>>> actually being 2.0 (e.g., did we release a 1.4, a 1.5, a 1.6?) If we > >>>> get to ~1.6 over the next 6 months and there is still no active > >>>> development > >>> > >>> on > >>> > >>>> 2.0, I'd propose we do this at that point in time: > >>>> > >>>> 1. branch the current trunk as > >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/nutch/branches/nutchgora 2. grab > >>>> latest stable branch (e.g., > >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/nutch/branches/branch-1.6) and > >>> > >>> *replace* > >>> > >>>> the Nutch trunk with it, and bump the version # to 1.7-dev 3. active > >>>> development on stable becomes active development in trunk and > nutchgora > >>>> still exists in case anyone ever resurrects it. > >>>> > >>>> That way, we give another 6 months to see how it shakes out and > >>> > >>> potentially > >>> > >>>> allow for 1 or 2 or 3 more stable releases before switching those over > >>>> to trunk. > >>>> > >>>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> Yes. I don't believe we should wait until january before discussing > this > >>> topic > >>> again. I, for example, cannot spend considerable extra time on the > issues > >>> i put in 1.4, also due to the fact that it's not entirely stable. > >>> > >>> There are many things i can write about this topic right now but don't > >>> feel it's neccessary. The choice is difficult and perhaps painful but > >>> when the voting round is opened by our project lead, i will vote for > >>> promoting 1.x back > >>> to trunk. > >>> > >>> My apologies for my impatience and pessimism. > >>> > >>>> BTW, I have a couple contributions from my CS572: Search Engines class > >>> > >>> from > >>> > >>>> a year ago that I'd love to port into the Nutch stable branch > including > >>>> Hubs/Authorities ranking and some other goodies. I'll try and work on > >>>> those over the next few months, I'm just letting everyone know now so > I > >>>> don't forget again :-) > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Chris > >>>> > >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > >>>> Senior Computer Scientist > >>>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > >>>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > >>>> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > >>>> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > >>>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Senior Computer Scientist > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > -- * *Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/ http://www.digitalpebble.com
