I was attempting to get things off the ground, but recieved little support from those familiar with the apache foundation - how it works, procedures etc, so I basically stopped around thanksgiving. I'm still around and interested in helping where I can though. (Just voicing my support so people know I exist ;) )
~Prescott Nasser > From: pierogi...@hotmail.com > To: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: Vote thread started on gene...@lucene.apache.org > Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:18:13 -0800 > > I'm willing to be a committer as well. > > I agree the entire porting process needs to be publicly documented and much > of the dev effort (at least initially) will be in this area. > > Alex > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lombard, Scott [mailto:slomb...@kingindustries.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 10:58 AM > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: Vote thread started on gene...@lucene.apache.org > > 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. >
