No rush. This is just something that needs to get settled before the next release in the 1.x series.
Cheers, Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Julien Nioche <lists.digitalpeb...@gmail.com> Date: Monday, September 1, 2014 1:10 PM To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <dev@nutch.apache.org> Cc: Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> Subject: Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9 >Let's wait a couple of weeks before voting on this. I know Sebastian is >on holiday until the 12th and there might be more people in this case. > >On 1 September 2014 17:34, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) ><chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > >Hi Julien, > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Julien Nioche <lists.digitalpeb...@gmail.com> >Reply-To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <dev@nutch.apache.org> >Date: Monday, September 1, 2014 2:23 AM >To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <dev@nutch.apache.org> >Cc: Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> >Subject: Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9 > >>Hi chaps, >> >> >>-1 from me. IMHO moving the trunk code to 3.x does not really solve the >>issue. I'd rather make it more explicit that the standard Nutch (1.x) and >>Nutch-GORA (2.x) are two separate beasts for instance by referring to 2.x >>as Nutch-GORA in the artifacts we >> release. This way users won't assume believe that one is superior to the >>other. We can keep the same SVN branches (trunk + 2.x) and use the minor >>version numbers as a reflection of the amount of changes produced in the >>code. > > >It has nothing to do with being superior? Was Apache Tomcat 6 superior to >Apache Tomcat 5? No, it had nothing to do with it - they were completely >separate architectures. Heck Apache Tomcat 7 was a place where some of >the architectural concepts from 5 and 6 met in the middle - that's >precisely what I am proposing here. > >We've just completed the development line of the 1.x series by releasing >1.9. 2.x is still going. They each do different things - 1.x is more >scalable. >2.x has more flexibility but is harder to install. It's not about one >being >superior to one another. > >> >> >> >>Changing to 3.x would imply a major change of architecture or >>functionality, which certainly won't be the case for the next release of >>the trunk. > > >Not really - all it would imply is the end of the 1.x branch-line, without >merging into the 2.x branch line. > >>When users ask "what is the difference between 3.x and 1.x?" we'd have to >>answer "not much", and more importantly >> when asked "what is the difference between 3.x and 2.x?" we'd reply >>"same as between 1.x and 2.x" ;-) Changing the name of the artefacts >>would clarify things. > > >So what? Answering user questions from time to time is not a huge deal. I >answer >them from my students all the time in teaching them Apache Nutch in my >search >engines class, or more recently with the JPL folks deploying it for our >internal >CIO search. > >> >> >>This reminds me that our FAQ does not really answer these questions (and >>other basic ones), will post about this separately. > > >Well if you are -1 on the renaming to 3.x, we'll have to figure something >out. >I'm -1 on renaming the artifacts to Nutch-Gora - so maybe what we need is >a >ballot with a few options and we can put it to a VOTE for the committee. > >I'll wait a few days to let this settle before calling such a VOTE. > >Cheers, >Chris > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On 29 August 2014 17:34, Lewis John Mcgibbney >><lewis.mcgibb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>Hi Chris, >> >> >>N.B. move to dev@ >> >> >>On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:40 AM, <user-digest-h...@nutch.apache.org> >>wrote: >> >>+1, great. >> >>I'd like to have a conversation about versioning. >> >>Since we're at 1.9, my suggestion would be to have the >>next in the trunk series (1.x) move to version 3.x post >>1.9 for the release. >> >> >> >> >>Based on the discussion from which this new thread stems I would totally >>be behind this. It breathes new life into trunk. Which is a bonnie >>feather in the Nutch bonnet. Here is my +1 on that one. >> >> >> >> >>Nutch2 remains Nutch and can be worked on there. That >>would give us a nice split in the diversionary branch >>paths for Nutch. >> >> >> >> >>+1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >> > >>Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering >> >>http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/ >>http://www.digitalpebble.com >>http://twitter.com/digitalpebble >> > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering > >http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/ >http://www.digitalpebble.com >http://twitter.com/digitalpebble > >
