Hi Michael, Please see my comment and response.
Regards, -- George > It is a good news to have 2.3.1 in repository, but, perhaps, > you would be kind enough to clarify a couple of things : > > 1. I don't remember email from you to the group about > stepping down , but my current understanding was that you had I didn't send a formal email. Few folks contacted me privately and I told them I've lost interest in the project. > stepped down and Michael Garski and a group of his colleagues > are going to release 2.3 to the public after having completed > that in their work time. I don't really care which variant to > use for my purposes, but it is quite confusing. Initially, Michael Garski's group started working on the port, and they did. I reviewed their work and found issues. So I decided to help with the effort, after all I have the experience. After my initial port, Doug Sale took over and he did the clean-up phase, which is getting the code compiling and runable so the demos work. Doing a port is not an easy task, and this time around was more difficult mainly because we jumped from 2.1 to 2.3.1. That is the delta was greater then it would have been if we didn't. What helped me a bit is the fact that I already had ported 2.2 early this year, so I used that as a base to reduce the delta and thus the complexity of the work. In short, the code that you see now, 2.3.1, is the only code, there is no variant. > 2. I do appreciate greatly that reliable version of > Lucene.Net won't be be delayed that much ( Lucene Java 2.1 > was released in February 2007 ) in a future and kept more or > less in sync with Java version. Michael Garski mentioned > incremental approach starting from 2.3 which seems to be more > viable option to keep up with Java . Any thoughts on that , > could it be mutual effort to track/apply incremental changes This has been my goal all along too. Lets first stabilize 2.3.1, port 2.3.2 (which was released on May 6th) and then keep the trunk of Java and C# Lucene in sync. > ? Anyway, to make this happen number of active comitters > should be more than 1 ( at least no other names than yours > can be seen at http://incubator.apache.org/lucene.net/ ). > Please add others ( at least, already mentioned by you ) , > otherwise Lucene.Net will be forever in incubator. Right now, I can't add names since Doug and DIGY don't have commit privilege. For Lucene.Net to graduate, there must be at least 3 committer, from different background (can't be from same organization) and the community much have demonstrated that it can make releases and work the Apache way. Once we near a final release of 2.3.1, we will visit this subject, nominate folks for comittership and start working on graduation requirement. For now, the most important thing to do, is get as many folks as possible to participate with code reviews, testing, offering fixes in form of patch, etc.
