The ASF has read-only Git mirrors already and is working on adding RW Git capability. There are also already several forks for .NET. The main problem seems to be lack of committers/contributors time. I think the project could be successful at the ASF if they were under their own PMC, but their doesn't seem to be interest in that either, given the lack of response to suggestions to go back to the Incubator and do just that.
-Grant On Dec 25, 2010, at 1:28 AM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > Personally, I would be *very* interested whether moving Lucene.NET to GitHub > will make a difference in terms of progress and style of development. Maybe > forking, pull requests, and the whole "social" thing makes it easier for > people > to participate. Since Lucene.NET has struggled for years at ASF, this would > be > a great opportunity to see if the above makes a difference. > > My 0.02 NT > > Otis > ---- > Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch > Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/ > > > > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> >> To: general@lucene.apache.org >> Sent: Thu, December 23, 2010 10:41:18 AM >> Subject: Re: [PMC] Next Steps on Lucene.NET >> >> >> On Dec 21, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote: >> >>> >>> : point, it's either the Attic or Incubator and I'm leaning toward Attic. >>> : However, I think it makes sense to give one more chance by saying: You >>> : have until January 31 to put together a proposal for going back to the >>> : Incubator. Please see http://incubator.apache.org for what such a >>> : proposal entails. >>> >>> I'm not certain the attic is appropriate -- my understanding is that it's >>> the final resting place for "projects" (TLP, ie: an entire PMC) that are >>> being disolved at a foundation level via board resolution. >>> >>> Within a PMC, like Lucene, the decision to retire a specific sub-projects >>> and mailing lists probably doesn't need to require a board resolution. >>> >>> but i could be wrong. >> >> OK, I'm not sure either. I will check. We could certainly just mothball >> it >> here, but I don't think that is necessarily what we want either. >> >>> >>> In either case, having a hard date seems like a good idea -- i thought one >>> had been established before, but i guess not. >> >> The hard date of addressing the 4 issues was set for the end of the year. >> I >> don't think any of them have been addressed. There was a big discussion >> for a >> while, but it doesn't seem like anyone has done any of the actual work, >> even >> something as simple as updating the website. This next date, in my mind, >> is to >> make it clear that the Lucene PMC is done being responsible for Lucene.NET >> by >> Jan. 31. I am more than willing to help them move somewhere else, but it >> is up >> to them to say where that is. >> >> -Grant -------------------------- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com
