Marco, My feeling would be to create strong automated conversion tools to allow java Lucene to be ported in to .NET in as few steps and as possible. The .net style goal is a noble one, but will require a significant more commitment to the project in the future. As each new version of java Lucene will have to be integrated by hand into the .net version.
As the conversion tools get more advanced and robust .net style code may be implemented as part of the automated conversion process. Scott -----Original Message----- From: Marco Dissel [mailto:marco.dis...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 1:16 PM To: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: RE: Vote thread started on gene...@lucene.apache.org What will be the goal of new committors? Convert the source into .net style code? If yes, we should try to stop will all the spin-offs and concentrate all the development in one project. Op 30 dec. 2010 19:02 schreef "Lombard, Scott" <slomb...@kingindustries.com> het volgende: > Grant, > > Thanks for your time explaining all the details. I will be willing work on a proposal to put Lucene.Net back in to incubation. I will need other people to step up and be committers as well. Heath has volunteered and as Grant has stated 4 committers are needed to for incubation. Who else is willing to be a committer? > > Grant I will definitely be taking you up on your offer to help on bring Lucene.Net into incubation. > > Scott > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsing...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:32 PM > To: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Vote thread started on gene...@lucene.apache.org > > > On Dec 30, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Heath Aldrich wrote: > >> Hi Grant, >> >> Thanks for taking the time to respond. >> >> While I have developed extensively against Lucene.net, I do not possess the java skills needed to do a port of the code... So, while I wouldn't mind being a committer, I do not think I am qualified. (I guess if I was, I could just use Lucene proper and that would be that) >> >> As to other duties of a committer, I think the ASF is perceived as a black box of questions for most of us. >> >> For one, I don't think anyone outside the 4 committers even understand *why* it is a good thing to be on the ASF vs. CodePlex, Sourceforge, etc. Maybe if there was an understanding of the why, the requirements of the ASF would make more sense. I think a lot of us right now just perceive the ASF as the group that is wanting to kill Lucene.net. > > I don't think we have a desire to kill it, I just think we are faced with the unfortunate reality that the project is already dead and now us on the PMC have the unfortunate job of cleaning up the mess as best we can. Again, it is not even that we want to see it go away, we on the PMC just don't want to be responsible for it's upkeep. You give me the names of 4 people who are willing to be committers (i.e. people willing to volunteer their time) and I will do my best to get the project into the Incubator. However, I have to tell you, my willingness to help is diminishing with every trip we take around this same circle of discussion. > > Simply put, given the way the vote has gone so far, the Lucene PMC is no longer interested in sustaining this project. If the community wishes to see it live at the ASF then one of you had better step up and spend 20-30 minutes of your time writing up the draft proposal (most of it can be copied and pasted) and circulating it. In fact, given the amount of time some of you have no doubt spent writing on this and other related threads you could have put together the large majority of the proposal, circulated the draft and got other volunteers to help and already be moving forward in a positive direction. Truth be told, I would do it, but I am explicitly not going to because I think that if the community can't take that one step to move forward, then it truly doesn't deserve to. > >> >> I get your comments about the slower than slow development, but that is also somewhat of a sign that it works. While 2.9.2 may be behind, it seems very stable with very few issues. If we send the project to the attic, how will anyone be able to submit bugfixes ever? Frankly, I use 2.9.2 every day and have not found bugs in the areas that I use... but I'm sure they are in there somewhere. >> >> As for the name, I thought Lucene.net was the name of the project back in the SourceForge days... >> So my question is based on the premise that "if the lucene.net name was brought *to* ASF, why can the community not leave with it?" > > Again, IANAL, but just b/c it was improperly used beforehand does not mean it is legally owned by some other entity. The Lucene name has been at the ASF since 2001 and Lucene.NET is also now a part of the ASF. (If your interested, go look at the discussions around iBatis and the movement of that community to MyBatis) > > -Grant > > > This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the > use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may > contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or > constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient > you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or > distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, > is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, > please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting > it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc. This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc.
