Minor correction.. Neal said "The alternative projects ... are not necessarily code or data compatible with Lucene"
I don't know of any alternative projects which are not data-compatible. All projects have stated that as a goal. Code compatible is a relative thing. Behaviourly the same, yes. Exactly identical for code samples, etc, no.. C# and Java are two different languages, and two different runtimes. They *shouldn't be the same*. No other Lucene port tries to do that. It's only because Java and C3 are quite similar (though also quite different) that this is even possible. Aimee.Net for example, proposed to be just a simple refactoring of Lucene.Net 2.9.2/3.X. Lucille.Net is a port of Lucene 3.X to .NET. Both of those projects are *very* similar to the Lucene.Net project and have active committers. The reason they forked is due two main points: - Lucene.Net's commitment to being a exact line-by-line automated port from Java which very few people agree with - The fact that, even if you wanted to help the project, it falls on deaf ears since the two committers have basically gone AWOL and aren't accepting help from the community How does a new person become a committer on the Lucene.Net project? Does the project have to be "closed" and go back to the incubator for that to happen? I think we are colluding the project with the committers. The *current* committers are slow moving and unresponsive. They should be removed from that role and new people should be assigned. I think a first step, prior to closing down the project, would be to assign a new set of committers from the community. I think there is a large pool of talented and motivated people willing to take on that role, were the opportunity to arise. Thanks, Troy On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Granroth, Neal V. <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't see any confusion here. The name implies tight coupling with the > "parent" Lucene project. The alternative projects that have sprouted up > elsewhere are only conceptual ports that are not necessarily code or data > compatible with Lucene. Using some other name for these projects makes sense. > > The problem with hosting a "slowing moving" project is that it very quickly > becomes obsolete. Lucene.NET at version 2.9.2 is already quite a ways behind > the current Lucene. > > I am sad to see the Lucene.NET's dissolution; but the process the Lucene PMC > is following is sound. > > - Neal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 10:48 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Vote thread started on [email protected] > > You are not the only one -- I totally agree with your points. > > On Dec 29, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Heath Aldrich <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Perhaps I'm the only one, but I really don't see the logic going on here. >> >> If you know there is a dedicated group of Lucene.net users, then how can you >> claim that the project is stagnant? >> There are active questions on the list, etc and there is help commonly >> offered through the mailing lists. >> From time to time as the need arises, the lucene.net is updated (yes I know >> it may be years between updates)... why is that necessarily bad? >> >> Further, if Apache doesn't want to continue to host development in its >> current state, why hang on to the name instead of releasing it where it can >> back to SourceForge, or codeplex or somewhere else? Why the iron fist >> regarding the name? Has the Apache foundation provided some investment to >> the Lucene.net name that they need to protect? >> I understand if they don't want to host a slowly developing product, but the >> name issue has me totally confused. >> >> Heath >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 10:15 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: FYI: Vote thread started on [email protected] >> >> For those of you who have been following the threads about the status of >> Lucene.NET, as the Lucene PMC Chair, I have started the formal process for a >> PMC vote for shutting down this project due to stagnation on the development >> side, effective Jan. 31, 2011. The thread is taking place on the >> [email protected] mailing list, which is where the PMC does most of >> it's business. >> >> I view this as a pretty unfortunate situation as I know there are a group of >> dedicated users in this community, but it is apparent that development has >> completely stagnated and also that the Lucene PMC as it is currently >> constituted is not interested in the .NET version of Lucene. Should the >> vote pass, my sincere hope is there is enough galvanization within the >> community here to put together a list of committers and a proposal and go >> back to the Apache Incubator to become a standalone project governed by >> people who are interested in Lucene.NET moving forward. If that works, we >> can simply migrate people on this list to the incubator lists. If it >> doesn't work, I suspect we will shut down the dev mailing list and put JIRA >> into a read-only mode as well as put SVN into a read-only mode. I am not >> sure what should be done w/ the user list, but it will likely be shut down >> too. >> >> -Grant Ingersoll >> >> >> >
