Hi Chris, I initially respawned this thread with the suggestion to not to wait until january orso before the vote. Hence my apologies for being impatient and pessimistic about trunk :)
Cheers, > Hey Julien, > > My option E was pretty much equivalent to B except I specified a time frame > (next 6 months). Are we just saying that we'll accelerate the time frame > to say, umm, next week or the week after? :) > > If so, fine by me. Since I moved nutchbase into the trunk at one point, I'd > be happy once we've VOTEd and decided to be the one to execute moving it > out. > > And yes, PMC votes will be binding and we'll do majority takes it, fine by > me. > > Cheers, > Chris > > On Sep 17, 2011, at 1:45 AM, Julien Nioche wrote: > > Let's keep it simple. Let's vote for option B (i.e. shelve 2.0), if most > > people are in favour then we don't need to look into other options at > > all. If not, we'll see what alternatives or arguments come up and vote > > on these later. > > > > I assume that only PMC votes will be binding and the majority takes it? > > > > Julien > > > > On 16 September 2011 22:30, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) > > <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: Why don't we just collect VOTEs > > for each of the options a-e, and then figure out based on that if there > > is a majority. If there's no majority, we can widdle it down to say the > > top 2-3, and then VOTE on those, looking for majority again. > > > > Cheers, > > Chris > > > > On Sep 16, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Markus Jelsma wrote: > > > Option B) Shelve trunk in a branch and promote 1.4 to trunk. We can > > > always choose to hardwire HBASE (option D) later. > > > > > > Markus > > > > > >> Am happy to call for a vote on the future of Nutch 2.0 if you want. > > >> Shall we reduce the various options described before to a single one? > > >> > > >> Julien > > >> > > >> On 15 September 2011 19:55, Markus Jelsma <markus.jel...@openindex.io>wrote: > > >>>> Hi Guys, > > >>>> > > >>>> I thought I'd chime in on this thread. My comments below: > > >>>>> I understand and share your frustration, however you need to bear > > >>>>> in > > >>> > > >>> mind > > >>> > > >>>>> that things are done only if people volunteer and have time - > > >>>>> usually taken from their holiday, weekends, evenings. Chris (who > > >>>>> is the de > > >>> > > >>> facto > > >>> > > >>>>> release master for Nutch and Gora) has not had the time and nobody > > >>>>> else has volunteered to do it. > > >>>> > > >>>> Yep I haven't had the time to push a Gora 0.1.1-incubating release > > >>>> that will address the Maven issues. However it is on my roadmap for > > >>>> open > > >>> > > >>> source > > >>> > > >>>> stuff to get done in the next month, so that's a good thing. But > > >>>> yes, > > >>> > > >>> that > > >>> > > >>>> portion of my open source work is all volunteer time, so sometimes > > >>>> other things take priority. > > >>>> > > >>>>>> As it happens, yesterday was the 1 year anniversary of the last > > >>>>>> successful Hudson/Jenkins build... If that actually worked, we > > >>>>>> could point people towards it as a useful recipe for how to get a > > >>>>>> build working off trunk. I haven't been following Nutch too > > >>>>>> closely, but it always strikes me as really odd, that there's a > > >>>>>> nightly build and it doesn't bother anybody that it fails all the > > >>>>>> time (and that there isn't a nightly build for the stable > > >>>>>> branches). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The real issue behind all this is what we should do with Nutch 2.0. > > >>> > > >>> What > > >>> > > >>>>> follows is only my opinion and I would love to hear what others > > >>>>> have to say on this subject. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Since we (actually mostly Dogacan) wrote 2.0 and delegated the > > >>>>> storage > > >>> > > >>> to > > >>> > > >>>>> Gora, the latter hasn't really taken off since incubation. There > > >>>>> have been some modest contributions to it but it does not seem to > > >>>>> be used much and there is virtually nothing happening on it in > > >>>>> terms of development. More worryingly, the people who initially > > >>>>> contributed to > > >>> > > >>> it > > >>> > > >>>>> are not very active on the project (such is life, new jobs, > > >>>>> different projects, etc...) anymore·. As for Nutch 2.0, it hasn't > > >>>>> made any progress in the last 12 months : we still have the same > > >>>>> bugs, the > > >>> > > >>> tests > > >>> > > >>>>> do not work, the build has to be done manually etc... > > >>>> > > >>>> Yep. > > >>>> > > >>>>> At the same time, there has been a new lease of life into Nutch as > > >>>>> a whole : there is definitely more activity on the mailing lists, > > >>>>> new users, new active committers etc... and quite a few bugfixes > > >>>>> and improvements - most of them backported from what had been done > > >>>>> in the trunk and people seem fairly happy with what we can do with > > >>>>> 1.4 > > >>>> > > >>>> Totally agreed. I'm actually not super surprised -- ever since 1.1, > > >>>> I > > >>> > > >>> kind > > >>> > > >>>> of felt that maintaining a stable 1.X branch of Nutch (in parallel > > >>>> to the 2.0 efforts) was really going to pay off since there was > > >>>> renewed interest from users in leveraging (and furthermore > > >>>> accepting) the nuances of 1.X. > > >>>> > > >>>>> So the question is : what shall we do with 2.0? Here are a few > > >>>>> possibilities > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> a) put some effort into it, fix the bugs and make so that it can be > > >>> > > >>> used > > >>> > > >>>>> instead of 1.x > > >>>>> b) shelve it and leave it for enthusiasts to play with + make 1.x > > >>>>> the trunk again > > >>>>> c) do nothing : keep 2.0 and 1.x in parallel (but having to > > >>>>> maintain > > >>> > > >>> two > > >>> > > >>>>> branches is quite a pain) > > >>>>> d) abandon the idea of a neutral storage layer with Gora and > > >>>>> hardwire > > >>> > > >>> it > > >>> > > >>>>> to e.g. HBase > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Option (a) has not happened in the last 12 months and I am not very > > >>>>> hopeful about it. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> What do you guys think? > > >>>> > > >>>> I'd suggest an option e). Evolve and keep releasing 1.X over the > > >>>> next 6 months, and keep 2.0 in the trunk. After 6 months, see how > > >>>> close 1.X is > > >>> > > >>> to > > >>> > > >>>> actually being 2.0 (e.g., did we release a 1.4, a 1.5, a 1.6?) If we > > >>>> get to ~1.6 over the next 6 months and there is still no active > > >>>> development > > >>> > > >>> on > > >>> > > >>>> 2.0, I'd propose we do this at that point in time: > > >>>> > > >>>> 1. branch the current trunk as > > >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/nutch/branches/nutchgora 2. grab > > >>>> latest stable branch (e.g., > > >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/nutch/branches/branch-1.6) and > > >>> > > >>> *replace* > > >>> > > >>>> the Nutch trunk with it, and bump the version # to 1.7-dev 3. active > > >>>> development on stable becomes active development in trunk and > > >>>> nutchgora still exists in case anyone ever resurrects it. > > >>>> > > >>>> That way, we give another 6 months to see how it shakes out and > > >>> > > >>> potentially > > >>> > > >>>> allow for 1 or 2 or 3 more stable releases before switching those > > >>>> over to trunk. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thoughts? > > >>> > > >>> Yes. I don't believe we should wait until january before discussing > > >>> this topic > > >>> again. I, for example, cannot spend considerable extra time on the > > >>> issues i put in 1.4, also due to the fact that it's not entirely > > >>> stable. > > >>> > > >>> There are many things i can write about this topic right now but > > >>> don't feel it's neccessary. The choice is difficult and perhaps > > >>> painful but when the voting round is opened by our project lead, i > > >>> will vote for promoting 1.x back > > >>> to trunk. > > >>> > > >>> My apologies for my impatience and pessimism. > > >>> > > >>>> BTW, I have a couple contributions from my CS572: Search Engines > > >>>> class > > >>> > > >>> from > > >>> > > >>>> a year ago that I'd love to port into the Nutch stable branch > > >>>> including Hubs/Authorities ranking and some other goodies. I'll try > > >>>> and work on those over the next few months, I'm just letting > > >>>> everyone know now so I don't forget again :-) > > >>>> > > >>>> Cheers, > > >>>> Chris > > >>>> > > >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >>>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > > >>>> Senior Computer Scientist > > >>>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > > >>>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > > >>>> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > > >>>> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > > >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >>>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > > >>>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > > >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > > Senior Computer Scientist > > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Senior Computer Scientist > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
