Thanks Eks for the "education". 1) If you think Lucene is good enough for you, then great. I think there is room for improvement, and wanted to share on some work we did to the rest of the community thru open source. If you are happy to take a snapshot of lucene and build on top of it, then good for you.
2) yes, there is Jira. Yet at least seems to me the severity and votes do not reflect on how to patches gets committed. Good for you that your patches get regularly committed, I guess there is a lot for me to learn from you on how to do that. Obviously being out-spoken does not help. Open source politics, cool! 3) If that is how it works, then it is how it works. (Sounds a lot like the Spring project.) Seems like being a committer can be rather lucrative. My comment was on the statements of being volunteers and don't get paid, which is a little misleading. I guess I need to learn to be a good boy not to piss off the committers anymore (or convince my company to pay to get some patches in) And hopefully someday I get to grow up and get to become a committer and make some $ too. -John On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:36 PM, eks dev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John, > sorry I have to comment, but I feel here some substantial missconceptions > abot Open Source > > 1) > "e.g. >30 million documents indexed and searched in realtime., and I really > had to do some tweaking." > So what? What I or anyone else has to do with it? "some tweaking" is > definitely better than making everything from the scratch or going to > commercial vendors... no? > > 2) > "what would make it better is some transparency on how patches/issues are > evaluated to be committed. At least seemed from the outside, it is purely > being decided on by the committers, and since my understanding is that an > open source project belongs to the public, the public user base should have > some say." > > Transparency, Jira + this mailing list. Everybody is allowed to express an > opinion, *even committers* , weather you like it or not is just another > question. If you put up convincing arguments, be assured even committers can > change opinions. > Imo, it does not go much more transparent than that. > Sure it belongs to public, you do not have to pay for it, read ASF Licence. > If you have better proposal on how to organize Open Source projects, > speak-up. I do not know how we could ever avoid committers having final say > on things without provoking haos? > > 3) "Would groups/companies that pay for consulting service get their > patches/requirements committed with higher priority?" > Sure, of course, *even commmercial users are parts of the comunity* and we > schould be greatful that they contribute and commit ther resouces so that > others can benefit from it. Think again about it, there is absolutly nothing > bad behind it, no conspiracy. > Just one example on micro scale. I had an itch and had to do some > "tweaking", my customer(comercial) had nothing against contributing back to > Lucene, so I did it. I get my money and I give something back to the > comunity. End result, I am happy, Lucene gets better and everybody profits a > bit from it. > Should I have problems with my consciones? I do not think so. > > Conflict of interests, no, that is rather evolution. What do you think why > commiters work on Lucene, do you honestly beleive they have no families to > feed and just sit and wait someone feeds them with proposals for nice > features? Commiters as well as everybody else here have their own, private > agendas, goals, ideas, needs ... and all these things get somehow conflated > into Lucene. > Back to my example, I was lucky that a few commiters shared my opinion > about usfulness and the priority of this patch, it could have been > different. If all commiters were busy with private agenda and had higher > priorities at that moment, well, that would habe been bad luck for me. No > hard feelings even in that case, why should I expect someone puts my itch as > their priority. > > Cheers, eks > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* John Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org > *Sent:* Thursday, 4 December, 2008 6:36:28 > *Subject:* Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1473) Implement Externalizable in > main top level searcher classes > > Grant: > I am sorry that I disagree with some points: > > 1) "I think it's a sign that Lucene is pretty stable." - While lucene is a > great project, especially with 2.x releases, great improvements are made, > but do we really have a clear picture on how lucene is being used and > deployed. While lucene works great running as a vanilla search library, when > pushed to limits, one needs to "hack" into lucene to make certain things > work. If 90% of the user base use it to build small indexes and using the > vanilla api, and the other 10% is really stressing both on the scalability > and api side and are running into issues, would you still say: "running well > for 90% of the users, therefore it is stable or extensible"? I think it is > unfair to the project itself to be measured by the vanilla use-case. I have > done couple of large deployments, e.g. >30 million documents indexed and > searched in realtime., and I really had to do some tweaking. > > 2) "You want stuff committed, keep it up to date, make it manageable to > review, document it, respond to questions/concerns with answers as best you > can. " - To some degree I would hope it depends on what the issue is, e.g. > enforcing such process on a one-line null check seems to be an overkill. I > agree with the process itself, what would make it better is some > transparency on how patches/issues are evaluated to be committed. At least > seemed from the outside, it is purely being decided on by the committers, > and since my understanding is that an open source project belongs to the > public, the public user base should have some say. > > 3) which brings me to this point: "I personally, would love to work on > Lucene all day every day as I have a lot of things I'd love to engage the > community on, but the fact is I'm not paid to do that, so I give what I can > when I can. I know most of the other committers are that way too." - Is > this really true? Isn't a large part of the committer base also a part of > the for-profit, consulting business, e.g. Lucid? Would groups/companies that > pay for consulting service get their patches/requirements committed with > higher priority? If so, seems to me to be a conflict of interest there. > > 4) "Lather, rinse, repeat. Next thing you know, you'll be on the > receiving end as a committer." - While I agree that being a committer is a > great honor and many committers are awesome, but assuming everyone would > want to be a committer is a little presumptuous. > > In conclusion, I hope I didn't unleash any wrath from the committers for > expressing candor. > > -John > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> >> On Dec 3, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Jason Rutherglen (JIRA) wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Hoss wrote: "sort of mythical "Lucene powerhouse" >>> Lucene seems to run itself quite differently than other open source Java >>> projects. Perhaps it would be good to spell out the reasons for the >>> reluctance to move ahead with features that developers work on, that work, >>> but do not go in. The developer contributions seem to be quite low right >>> now, especially compared to neighbor projects such as Hadoop. Is this >>> because fewer people are using Lucene? Or is it due to the reluctance to >>> work with the developer community? Unfortunately the perception in the eyes >>> of some people who work on search related projects it is the latter. >>> >> >> >> Or, could it be that Hadoop is relatively new and in vogue at the moment, >> very malleable and buggy(?) and has a HUGE corporate sponsor who dedicates >> lots of resources to it on a full time basis, whilst Lucene has been around >> in the ASF for 7+ years (and 12+ years total) and has a really large install >> base and thus must move more deliberately and basically has 1 person who >> gets to work on it full time while the rest of us pretty much volunteer? >> That's not an excuse, it's just the way it is. I personally, would love to >> work on Lucene all day every day as I have a lot of things I'd love to >> engage the community on, but the fact is I'm not paid to do that, so I give >> what I can when I can. I know most of the other committers are that way >> too. >> >> Thus, I don't think any one of us has a reluctance to move ahead with >> features or bug fixes. Looking at CHANGES.txt, I see a lot of >> contributors. Looking at java-dev and JIRA, I see lots of engagement with >> the community. Is it near the historical high for traffic, no it's not, but >> that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think it's a sign that Lucene is >> pretty stable. >> >> What we do have a reluctance for are patches that don't have tests (i.e. >> this one), patches that massively change Lucene APIs in non-trivial ways or >> break back compatibility or are not kept up to date. Are we perfect? Of >> course not. I, personally, would love for there to be a way that helps us >> process a larger volume of patches (note, I didn't say commit a larger >> volume). Hadoop's automated patch tester would be a huge start in that, but >> at the end of the day, Lucene still works the way all ASF projects do: via >> meritocracy and volunteerism. You want stuff committed, keep it up to >> date, make it manageable to review, document it, respond to >> questions/concerns with answers as best you can. To that end, a real simple >> question can go a long way and getting something committed, and it simply >> is: "Hey Lucener's, what else can I do to help you review and commit >> LUCENE-XXXX?" Lather, rinse, repeat. Next thing you know, you'll be on >> the receiving end as a committer. >> >> -Grant >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > >
