Hi Julien, I didn't want to skip ship with this one, but it seems that the binding community has already spoken their mind, and I for one shadow your suggestion.
It's clear that trunk as it currently exists is not bleeding edge, there have been too many broken fronts to launch a concentrated code development attack on that it has simply not happened at all. We all seem to be using 1.4 well and I am extremely impressed and very happy with the way development is going. We are making a steady effort as a community to address issues and the common community interests are usually being met with reasonable support from anyone who can help out. If anything, Trunk is a bit of a headache and although some of us want to see it working (me included), I don't think it is within the communities best interests. I'm ready for a vote. And yes I think voting should be reduced. Based on past threads, it seemed to be a bit too complex, and the subsequent outcome was that nothing was really done and trunk was still broken. Maybe once Gora has matured a bit Nutch trunk will re-emerge as an attractive model. Thank you On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Julien Nioche < lists.digitalpeb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > > > > -- > * > *Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering > > http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/ > http://www.digitalpebble.com > -- *Lewis*
