On Dec 23, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Simone Chiaretta wrote: > There are already a few other forks going on...
That's fine, too. I should have said, anyone interested in this project staying alive at the ASF, should go work on an Incubator proposal. > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> On Dec 23, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Wyatt Barnett wrote: >> >>> In case anyone wants to read the discussion, it can be found at >>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/general/113252. >>> >>> As for the subject matter, frankly I think help has been rejected or >>> at least not accepted -- see issues such as >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-379 for one example. >> >> Just to be clear on my role here: I am not interested in doing work on >> Lucene.NET and will not be doing commits to the project. I just have the >> role, as PMC chair, of making sure the projects we are responsible for are >> active and healthy. The committers on the project are responsible for >> moving the project forward and doing the real work. To the point of my >> original email, the fact that the PMC and the committers are not (mostly) >> the same people is problematic for this project and reason #1 of why it >> belongs either as it's own standalone project at the ASF or somewhere else. >> >> I would suggest, at this point, that anyone who is interested in this >> project remaining alive to go to >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html and then start on an >> Incubator Proposal and let others here know about it. >> >> >>> >>> Insofar as an official 2.9.2 release -- what is involved? From what I >>> can tell, 2.9.2 has been a de-facto release for the better part of a >>> year at least. Do we just need to build some binaries and say it is >>> so? >>> >> >> See http://apache.org/dev/#releases. Again, however, you need committers >> who are willing to do the work. As stated above, you are probably better >> off spending your time putting together an Incubator proposal. >> >> -Grant >> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> In my opinion, no, it has not. Not one of the committers responded to >> my repeated appeals for the Board Report and, AFAICT, the website, etc. have >> not been updated. There is currently a PMC level discussion taking place at >> [email protected] (the subject is "Next Steps on Lucene.NET") on >> what the next steps should be. >>>> >>>> On Dec 22, 2010, at 4:54 AM, Simone Chiaretta wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> just wanted to know if the Lucene.net team managed to do the things the >>>>> "board" was asking in order to keep it alive. >>>>> I cannot see anything online (new website, latest "official" release, >> no new >>>>> commits). >>>>> >>>>> Simone >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Simone Chiaretta >>>>> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider >>>>> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz >>>>> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber >>>>> twitter: @simonech >>>>> >>>>> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic >>>>> "Life is short, play hard" >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Simone Chiaretta > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber > twitter: @simonech > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic > "Life is short, play hard" -------------------------- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com
