I wonder, what's going to be the relationship between this and Lucy? Also, how do both of them compare to Sphinx?
2010/5/27 Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]>: > Ryan, thanks. I understand, and obviously if the PMC will think the same > this is what we'll be doing. > > Unfortunately, I haven't heard from the PMC yet, and I'm not sure where this > is going exactly. If the proposal is what keeping this from being discussed, > do let me know. Otherwise, I'm hoping someone with good knowledge of this > process could respond and help us move this forward. I can be contacted > privately if needed. > > Itamar. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ryan McKinley [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 1:31 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Adding CLucene as a Lucene subproject > > Thanks Itamar- > > Apologies since the last email is not very clear... Not speaking as > the PMC, my feeling is that for this an incubation process will be > needed. With Apache, the projects are more about the community then > the code -- since there exists a CLucene community with its own > culture etc, i think the incubation process makes sense (that is the > whole point of the incubator - in my opinion) For incubation, CLucene > would need a champion > > again, just throwing it out there, and *not* speaking as the PMC. > > ryan > > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Ryan, >> >> I'm not familiar with the Apache way of doing things. It is my > understanding >> that if the invitation is initiated by the PMC itself, no incubation > process >> nor a champion are required. Considering CLucene's age and proven > stability, >> I was hoping we could go that route. If we need a PMC member as a > champion, >> may this be a call for one. >> >> Considering CLucene is targetting a very different users base than Lucene >> is, I don't see how it can possibly be a distraction. On the countrary - >> many optimizations done in CLucene back in the old days were later adapted >> by Lucene itself, and I'm sure this will continue. Also, I believe CLucene >> has a great part in promoting Lucene, especially among non-Java > developers. >> So, I don't see how CLucene is a moot point more than Lucene.Net for > example >> has ever been. >> >> I would love to be working with anyone to get this process properly > defined >> and started. A proposal is being worked on. >> >> Itamar. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ryan McKinley [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:51 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Adding CLucene as a Lucene subproject >> >> Having skimmed most of the thread... >> >> It seems the question of if CLucene should be a sub-project may be > premature >> considering that it would really need someone in the PMC to champion it -- >> do the real work to make it happen. >> >> I can see many ways this could be a good addition to lucene land, I can > also >> see many ways that it may just be a distraction. Unless someone actually >> can work with them, it is a moot point. >> >> ryan >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Following a recent discussion with Otis, I would like to request for >>> the CLucene project to join the ASF, as a sub-project of Lucene. >>> >>> CLucene is an important port of Lucene, and is being used very widely >>> for a few years now. The project aims to be attractive to people who >>> like to use Lucene but wants to increase performance or reduce the >>> overheads of using a JVM, for C++ developers; and eventually for users >>> of various high-level or scripting languages. >>> >>> We are currently hosting on SourceForge; our latest release conforms >>> to Java Lucene 1.9.1, but the master branch in our git repository >>> works with 2.3.2 indexes, and is being worked on for a while now. More >>> info is available in our website (http://clucene.sourceforge.net/) and >>> project page (https://sourceforge.net/projects/clucene/). >>> >>> CLucene is currently released under the LGPL and the Apache 2.0 >>> licenses (dual). If this needs changing, we will need some legal help >>> to do that correctly. >>> >>> Please advise on how to pursue this, and what needs to be done from our >> end. >>> This move is very important to us, and could also benefit the Lucene >>> community. Hopefully, we could make this happen. >>> >>> Itamar. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional >> commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко ([email protected]) Phone: +7 (495) 683-567-4 ICQ: 104465785 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
