> On Jan 12, 2017, at 02:22, Thomas Koch <k...@orbiteam.de> wrote: > > Dear Jan, > thanks for your explanations. > >> PyLucene is driven by its own community, and user involvement and >> contributions is a must. > I’m quite familiar with community contributions - have already submitted code > and feedback, tested Pylucene releases, did provide support to other users > and voted several times for new releases. > > >> The (sub)project will survive only to the extent that its current users >> invest in it. > so is this different to how the main (Java)Lucene project works? just curious > … > > >> For an ASF Open Source Project, the only thing that is required to get going >> is user/developer >> involvement and teamwork. While Andi started the project due to needs at the >> time, and became >> a committer, he is no longer an active user, so perhaps time has come for >> other users to step ut and take >> responsibility. >> > That’s first time I hear this (bad) news. So if Andi is no longer an active > user - who is the maintainer of PyLucene/JCC?
I am still the maintainer of this project. I am no longer using Lucene or PyLucene on a daily basis since 2011. I'm still happy to continue maintaining the project, though. Andi.. > >> How “funding” would look like in the Python3 case is not so much sending >> money to the ASF, >> but more for individual companies like your own, to sponsor (through >> developer time) the major >> work on the patch, and driving it through to completion. Hopefully other >> users will contribute along >> the way too. > > > We developed and provided the patch (which already took some time) for review > and further adaption and really hope now for other users to step in. This is > our current position for several reasons an after internal discussions which > I cannot disclose here. Sorry. On the other hand, if we’d be the only user(s) > interested/willing to push Python3 support (and Pylucene/JCC as a whole) then > this project could not survive anyway I fear. > > > best regards, > > Thomas > — >> Am 06.01.2017 um 12:32 schrieb Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com>: >> >> Hi, >> >>> I hope you didn’t get this wrong! We all appreciate the existence of >>> JCC/PyLucene and especially all the effort you’ve put into this. >> >> >> PyLucene is driven by its own community, and user involvement and >> contributions is a must. >> The (sub)project will survive only to the extent that its current users >> invest in it. >> >>> So if some funding is required to get this going … >> >> For an ASF Open Source Project, the only thing that is required to get going >> is user/developer >> involvement and teamwork. While Andi started the project due to needs at the >> time, and became >> a committer, he is no longer an active user, so perhaps time has come for >> other users to step ut and take >> responsibility. >> >> How “funding” would look like in the Python3 case is not so much sending >> money to the ASF, >> but more for individual companies like your own, to sponsor (through >> developer time) the major >> work on the patch, and driving it through to completion. Hopefully other >> users will contribute along >> the way too. >> >> You will of course need help from experienced developers, but the ideal >> situation is that after >> a couple of such patches that get committed, you (or the developer working >> on the code) will be nominated >> as committer and can continue developing PyLucene without the need for Andi >> or any other one individual. >> >>> There has been some discussions about the future of PyLucene on this list >>> but I still didn't see any conclusion/decision >> >> >> The discussion sparked some new development and a release, which is a >> success. So the decission I guess is to keep PyLucene alive and try to >> strengthen the community. >> As long as the project continues to produce releases, it is (somewhat) alive. >> If on the other hand another year or two goes by without another release, >> I’m sure the PMC will take action again. >
