Grant wrote: Therefore, it is with some hesitation that I suggest we mothball Lucy. Mostly, I hesitate, because I hate to see any project be archived on the hope that someone will come in and pick it up. However, I just don't see that happening. If Marvin wishes to resurrect it, he can donate KS (or whatever core part of it is Lucy) and go through incubation and prove there is a community and then we can turn it back on.
Hi Grant, I just subscribed to this list because I saw your post to the lucy-dev list, where I have been subscribed since the project started. Thanks for initiating this conversation. It's true that Lucy still has no code. I am seeing at least a half-dozen daily commits to KS svn however, and I know that Marvin still plans to donate the core C pieces of that project to Lucy. KS has gained a lot of traction in the Perl user community, even if the number of committers is low (e.g., I have a commit bit on KS svn but haven't contributed much in the last year). So I would hate to see the idea of Lucy mothballed. Whether KS still bears enough resemblance to Lucene to be called a 'loose port' is probably debate-able, and so for reasons of [political] identity perhaps it doesn't belong under the Lucene umbrella anymore. But I know the cross-fertilization of ideas between the Lucene and KS developers has been significant, and the idea of a core C IR library with the features that KS has is very appealing (at least to me). I'll leave it to Marvin to comment on whether he's ready to commit code to Lucy and/or if that's still the appropriate vehicle for his vision. pek -- Peter Karman . [email protected] . http://peknet.com/
