Guys, I thought I'd chime in here. I don't have a lot of time tonight (long day out here in California), but perhaps I can add more thoughts tomorrow.
My +1 for moving Nutch into a TLP. With a 1.0 release, and several prior releases (~10), I think that the discussion is reasonable. I also tend to agree with Dennis's view regarding it being a positive thing to have a Nutch PMC. The project has been around since 2005, and whether activity has slowed recently of late, or not, there are still folks who are actively interested in Nutch, and use it in operational form on the day-to-day, myself included in that area. That said, I would like to revisit some of the ideas about the Next Generation Nutch discussion: http://markmail.org/message/mcnbgg7uf54snf55#query:next%20generation%20nutch %20mattmann+page:1+mid:ofk3ob3hv4djmrmn+state:results And use this as a spring board for some of the things we should really think about if we make Nutch a TLP. IMHO, these ideas really justify Nutch as a TLP because we: 1. have a 1.0 release (and several official 0.x releases and patch 0.x.y patch releases) 2. have the system in real-world operations 3. have a plan going forward for a "next gen" or 2.0 architecture As for Nutch being an integration platform for existing Lucene components, I think that Nutch should certainly make use of existing functionality where it makes sense (Tika, Solr, etc.), but we really need to take a hard look at insulating the core POJO model of Nutch (Brin and Page paper here folks, I'm talking the Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine) from the underlying technology substrate. That would be my on my list of top goals for Nutch as a TLP. In fact, even thinking about this, I think it lends itself very nicely to a category of sub-projects (e.g., Nutch-Hadoop, Nutch-JMS, etc.) to think about from a TLP perspective. Anyways, just wanted to chime in. I'll add more tomorrow. Thanks, Chris On 3/17/09 7:05 PM, "Marc Boucher" <marc.bouc...@hyperix.com> wrote: > Dennis, > > That adds another dimension to the issue which I had not considered. > One avenue as you suggest would be to add another committer to the > Lucene PMC. If that does not work them maybe going the route of TLP is > the best option. > > Marc > > >> Part of this is about releases. Currently releases are voted on by Lucene >> PMC members and it takes 3 members to confirm a vote. There are only 2 >> Nutch committers on the Lucene PMC. So for releases, not that we have had >> many recently, other Lucene PMC members who may not be actively associated >> with Nutch would need to vote to release. If Nutch was a TLP there would be >> a Nutch PMC which would most likely include all current Nutch committers. >> The other may be to add another Nutch committer to the Lucene PMC. >> >>> >>> My thoughts. And hopefully in the near future my small team will be >>> able to contribute to Nutch in a meaningful way. >> >> Any and every contribution is welcome. >> >> Dennis >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
