On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:53:39AM -0700, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> I would suggest that as a way to maintain momentum, the Lucy devs setup a
> webpage akin to the incubator graduation checklist page, listing the
> current "state" of the community, and come up with a plan to post regular
> "Lucy
: > My sense is that Lucy had better self-regulate or else. :) I think Doug's
: > suggestion of following the incubation check list gives us the tool we need
: > for that.
:
: OK, I'm content for now. We've known each other long enough that I
: trust you get the gist of what we're after at
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 09:31:27PM -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> OK, I'm content for now. We've known each other long enough that I trust
> you get the gist of what we're after at this point. Thus, I'm looking
> forward to Lucy "graduating" in the future.
Thank you, and thanks to all thread pa
On Jun 17, 2010, at 2:30 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>
>> I ask those things, b/c I think the answers will help us understand better
>> whether this is something the Lucene PMC is interested in status checking,
>> etc, to which it hasn't shown a track record of doing to date.
>
> My sense is that
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:25:13AM -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> I guess a big question I have is how does Lucy actually relate to Lucene?
When Lucy was conceived, we envisioned that our eventual sub-communities
(Perl, Ruby, etc) would approach using and extending the library in distinct
ways, a
On Jun 15, 2010, at 2:09 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On 06/15/2010 10:48 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>> Sounds like Doug is saying we should get a rough consensus from the PMC
>> on whether we want to put more effort into Lucy - not just abide its
>> existence as seems to have been the case.
>
> Yes, b
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:09:06AM -0700, Doug Cutting wrote:
> Yes, but, to be clear, I don't think it's a huge effort, no more effort
> than the Incubator PMC puts in. You should get regualar reports, read
> them, and make sure they demonstrate progress towards graduation and, if
> they don't
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 07:52:12AM -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> OK. So, in my mind, what this would take is:
> 1. Doing a release.
> 2. Showing some user list traction (i.e. real users)
> 3. Identifying and cultivating other contributors (via patches, discussions,
>JIRA issues, helping oth
On 06/15/2010 10:48 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
Sounds like Doug is saying we should get a rough consensus from the PMC
on whether we want to put more effort into Lucy - not just abide its
existence as seems to have been the case.
Yes, but, to be clear, I don't think it's a huge effort, no more effo
On 6/15/10 1:38 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
On 06/14/2010 05:16 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head arround the idea of Lucy moving
from the Lucene TLP to the Incubator TLP. It probably would have made
sense for Lucy start in the Incubator years ago, but I'm not really
On 06/14/2010 05:16 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head arround the idea of Lucy moving
from the Lucene TLP to the Incubator TLP. It probably would have made
sense for Lucy start in the Incubator years ago, but I'm not really sure
what value that would add now give
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 06:01:44PM -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> My suggestion would be to see if Peter and Nate are interested in being
> committers on Lucy as an Incubator project.
I have now been in touch with both Peter and Nate. They would both like to
participate. :)
Marvin Humphrey
On Jun 14, 2010, at 8:16 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
> : Finally, given that Lucy undoubtedly is a separate community (if it ever
> : exists) with separate goals from Lucene and that it is considered ASF
> : best practice for PMC's to not be "umbrella" projects, I think we should
> : conside
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 05:16:46PM -0700, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> I'm having a hard time wrapping my head arround the idea of Lucy moving
> from the Lucene TLP to the Incubator TLP. It probably would have made
> sense for Lucy start in the Incubator years ago, but I'm not really sure
> what va
: Finally, given that Lucy undoubtedly is a separate community (if it ever
: exists) with separate goals from Lucene and that it is considered ASF
: best practice for PMC's to not be "umbrella" projects, I think we should
: consider either Lucy going into the Incubator with the goal of growing
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 06:01:44PM -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> I don't get why Lucy isn't just a part of KinoSearch. Why all this extra
> work to be at the ASF?
Because I want Lucy to be as successful as possible, and I am fully persuaded
that The Apache Way is the best means to that end.
On Jun 13, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 07:23:09AM -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> The thing it needs to do, in my mind, is prove their a community here more
>> than just Marvin (and despite the discussion on IRC, the mail archives
>> paint a different story
On Jun 12, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 07:10:32AM -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> Since the last email discussing Lucy, Marvin has been working on it, AFAICT,
>> which is a good thing.
>
> A year ago, the Lucy repository contained 6,275 lines of code. T
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 07:23:09AM -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> The thing it needs to do, in my mind, is prove their a community here more
> than just Marvin (and despite the discussion on IRC, the mail archives
> paint a different story:
> http://lucy.markmail.org/sear
Just to be clear, I wasn't saying Lucy has to leave the ASF. It can certainly
go into Incubator. The thing it needs to do, in my mind, is prove their a
community here more than just Marvin (and despite the discussion on IRC, the
mail archives paint a different story:
http://lucy.markmail.org/
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Michael McCandless
wrote:
> Technically, it's clear that Lucy is taking an innovative and
> well-thought-out approach, building a search engine that folds in
> what's been learned from all the painful experiences of those before
> it. Marvin gets to chuckle whene
Technically, it's clear that Lucy is taking an innovative and
well-thought-out approach, building a search engine that folds in
what's been learned from all the painful experiences of those before
it. Marvin gets to chuckle whenever we have one of our massive back
compat discussions...
When it hi
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 07:10:32AM -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Since the last email discussing Lucy, Marvin has been working on it, AFAICT,
> which is a good thing.
A year ago, the Lucy repository contained 6,275 lines of code. Today, it
contains 46,827.
> there does not appear to be anyon
It's been a while since we've taken a look at Lucy from a PMC standpoint, but I
think it is worth us reviewing once again. And, while this isn't easy to do
because I very much value Marvin as a member of the Lucene community, I think
we need have a frank discussion about whether Lucy belongs as
24 matches
Mail list logo
