Scott, I agree with everything you said. My opinion is that one of the largest failings of the current Lucene.Net development effort is that there's too much "magic" in the conversion process. This is assuming we continue with Lucene.Net as a line-by-line automated port.
As Heath said, the details of how we run the project are up to the next group of committers to decide once that group has been established. I'm sure this issue (as well as numerous other issues) will be discussed in great detail and length by the community at that time. Thanks, Troy On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Lombard, Scott <slomb...@kingindustries.com> wrote: > Troy, > > My feeling is that a combination Java and .Net experience is needed. Some > people will focus on Bug fixes in the .Net code while other focus on the > translation of the code as their experience allows. > > One of the things I would like to see different with Lucene.Net is that the > method conversion is kept in the SVN or Wiki. I feel the pre and post > processing as well as possibly extensions to what ever tool that is used for > the conversion are more important to this project then the actual executed > code. Keeping a focus on making strong conversion tools as a community > should help reduce the lag between a Java releases to a .Net releases. We > then won't be waiting for one person to make the conversion. > > Scott > > -----Original Message----- > From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 1:38 PM > To: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org > Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Vote thread started on gene...@lucene.apache.org > > Scott, > > I will gladly help put this proposal together and would like to > volunteer as a committer. I am communicating with others to find some > additional candidates to be committers. > > Regarding Heath, a quote from his last message in this thread: > > "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." > > Thanks, > Troy > > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Lombard, Scott > <slomb...@kingindustries.com> wrote: >> 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. >
