Marco, I agree with you on this front. I feel that the first tasks that a new Lucene.Net team should focus on, in terms of development are:
- Fully automating a line-by-line port using a tool such as Sharpen. This needs to become a commodity function requiring very little development effort - Bring the existing forks back in as branches within the ASF project. I am very interested in pursuing continued development on a more .NET style port (i.e. the Lucere project I started or Aimee.Net The Lucene.Net project should be able to continue with both development paths in the same project. Thanks, Troy On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Marco Dissel <marco.dis...@gmail.com> wrote: > What will be the goal of new committors? Convert the source into .net style > code? If yes, we should try to stop will all the spin-offs and concentrate > all the development in one project. > Op 30 dec. 2010 19:02 schreef "Lombard, Scott" <slomb...@kingindustries.com> > het volgende: >> Grant, >> >> Thanks for your time explaining all the details. I will be willing work on > a proposal to put Lucene.Net back in to incubation. I will need other people > to step up and be committers as well. Heath has volunteered and as Grant has > stated 4 committers are needed to for incubation. Who else is willing to be > a committer? >> >> Grant I will definitely be taking you up on your offer to help on bring > Lucene.Net into incubation. >> >> Scott >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsing...@apache.org] >> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:32 PM >> To: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Vote thread started on gene...@lucene.apache.org >> >> >> On Dec 30, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Heath Aldrich wrote: >> >>> Hi Grant, >>> >>> Thanks for taking the time to respond. >>> >>> While I have developed extensively against Lucene.net, I do not possess > the java skills needed to do a port of the code... So, while I wouldn't mind > being a committer, I do not think I am qualified. (I guess if I was, I could > just use Lucene proper and that would be that) >>> >>> As to other duties of a committer, I think the ASF is perceived as a > black box of questions for most of us. >>> >>> For one, I don't think anyone outside the 4 committers even understand > *why* it is a good thing to be on the ASF vs. CodePlex, Sourceforge, etc. > Maybe if there was an understanding of the why, the requirements of the ASF > would make more sense. I think a lot of us right now just perceive the ASF > as the group that is wanting to kill Lucene.net. >> >> I don't think we have a desire to kill it, I just think we are faced with > the unfortunate reality that the project is already dead and now us on the > PMC have the unfortunate job of cleaning up the mess as best we can. Again, > it is not even that we want to see it go away, we on the PMC just don't want > to be responsible for it's upkeep. You give me the names of 4 people who are > willing to be committers (i.e. people willing to volunteer their time) and I > will do my best to get the project into the Incubator. However, I have to > tell you, my willingness to help is diminishing with every trip we take > around this same circle of discussion. >> >> Simply put, given the way the vote has gone so far, the Lucene PMC is no > longer interested in sustaining this project. If the community wishes to see > it live at the ASF then one of you had better step up and spend 20-30 > minutes of your time writing up the draft proposal (most of it can be copied > and pasted) and circulating it. In fact, given the amount of time some of > you have no doubt spent writing on this and other related threads you could > have put together the large majority of the proposal, circulated the draft > and got other volunteers to help and already be moving forward in a positive > direction. Truth be told, I would do it, but I am explicitly not going to > because I think that if the community can't take that one step to move > forward, then it truly doesn't deserve to. >> >>> >>> I get your comments about the slower than slow development, but that is > also somewhat of a sign that it works. While 2.9.2 may be behind, it seems > very stable with very few issues. If we send the project to the attic, how > will anyone be able to submit bugfixes ever? Frankly, I use 2.9.2 every day > and have not found bugs in the areas that I use... but I'm sure they are in > there somewhere. >>> >>> As for the name, I thought Lucene.net was the name of the project back in > the SourceForge days... >>> So my question is based on the premise that "if the lucene.net name was > brought *to* ASF, why can the community not leave with it?" >> >> Again, IANAL, but just b/c it was improperly used beforehand does not mean > it is legally owned by some other entity. The Lucene name has been at the > ASF since 2001 and Lucene.NET is also now a part of the ASF. (If your > interested, go look at the discussions around iBatis and the movement of > that community to MyBatis) >> >> -Grant >> >> >> This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the >> use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may >> contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or >> constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient >> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or >> distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, >> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, >> please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting >> it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc. >
