On Dec 29, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Heath Aldrich 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?
The PMC asked the community to step up and remedy 4 issues in October, several of which were quite simple to fix. Not one of them was done. There hasn't been a commit since July of 2010. While yes, there is a User community (and I'm happy to discuss ways we can help them), there is not a development community. > 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? IANAL, but the ASF owns the Lucene trademark and if we let it go, then it dilutes the protection of that name, AIUI. > I understand if they don't want to host a slowly developing product, but the > name issue has me totally confused. I don't think your characterization of slow moving is accurate. Releases to date have not been up to ASF standards, there has been zero commits in 6 months (You can't tell me there aren't bugs or patches that need to be applied) and all the committers are basically gone from the community. That is not slow developing, that is a coma. I do agree, however, that there are users of Lucene.NET out there. I am happy to help find them a home and even happy to see Lucene.NET stay at the ASF (and will help that happen), but it requires at least 4 people to step up and say they will be committers on a new Incubator project. Are you volunteering? -Grant
