[VOTE] Incubate lucene4c?
The Incubator requires the Lucene PMC vote on whether to accept the lucene4c codebase. +1 from me. Other Lucene PMC members - please cast your vote on this thread. Erik Begin forwarded message: From: "Cliff Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: February 17, 2005 5:12:36 AM EST To: Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Lucene4c Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Garrett, You're right that all new code bases should come through the Incubator. However, the appropriate PMC to vote on whether it should be accepted into the incubator is the sponsoring PMC, which in this case appears to be the Lucene PMC. (The Incubator PMC does sponsor some projects, usually the ones that are expected to eventually be their own TLP.) The Incubator PMC is responsible for supporting what comes in and voting whether it is ready to graduate. So, once the Lucene PMC votes to incubate it, the Incubator PMC will help you figure out exactly what needs to be done and will then vote on graduation. Hope that helps. Cliff On Monday, February 14, 2005 10:58 AM, Erik Hatcher wrote: On Feb 14, 2005, at 12:36 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: On Feb 14, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: All donated code should really go through the Incubator, even if only to do the required IP checklist. Right. By my question is why doesn't this go through the Lucene project? The Lucene PMC could bring the codebase into their project and register the IP stuff here w/ the incubator. Is there some precedent for this? I'm not sure what is meant by "register the IP stuff here". Could you elaborate on what this entails. I'd gladly bring the codebase into Lucene's repository if that is the consensus. It was created entirely by Garrett and he's agreed to donate it, so the IP should be pretty clear cut. Erik I hope I'm just misunderstanding, but this appears to be a proposal to create a new project at the ASF called "Lucene4c" geir On Feb 14, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Erik Hatcher wrote: I presume this codebase is substantial enough that it requires incubation? Or because it was a single developer, could he contribute it directly to the Lucene project and bypass incubation? Erik On Feb 14, 2005, at 8:35 AM, Garrett Rooney wrote: I'd like to propose the Lucene4c project for incubation. Lucene4c is a port of the Lucene search engine from Java to C, using the Apache Portable Runtime library for portability. The project is far from complete, and code to date is primarily concerned with reading an existing Lucene index, which must be created with another Lucene implementation (currently only Java Lucene has been tested). The plan is to complete support for the rest of the index format and then move on to implementing search functionality (beyond the current proof of concept code anyway). Once we've reached that point work will begin on actual indexing functionality so that Lucene4c can stand alone, without the use of another Lucene implementation for bootstrapping. The project would be part of the new Lucene top leve project, and Erik Hatcher has offerred to serve as a sponsor. While I have yet to expand the community of developers further than myself, I am anxious to do so, and I expect to be able to draw both from people as of yet unassociated with Lucene who have expressed interest in such a project and from existing Lucene developers who have expressed interest in establishing cross-language compatibility tests for the various Lucene ports. Lucene4c already has ties to existing ASF projects, particularly Lucene itself and APR. Bringing it into the ASF would only strengthen those ties. More details, including where to get the current release or development versions of the code can be found at the Lucene4c web site at http://electricjellyfish.net/garrett/lucene4c/ -garrett --- - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- = = = Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else." - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: [VOTE] Incubate lucene4c?
+1 --- Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Incubator requires the Lucene PMC vote on whether to accept the > lucene4c codebase. > > +1 from me. > > Other Lucene PMC members - please cast your vote on this thread. > > Erik > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: "Cliff Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: February 17, 2005 5:12:36 AM EST > > To: > > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Lucene4c > > Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org > > > > Garrett, > > > > You're right that all new code bases should come through the > Incubator. > > However, the appropriate PMC to vote on whether it should be > accepted > > into the incubator is the sponsoring PMC, which in this case > appears to > > be the Lucene PMC. (The Incubator PMC does sponsor some projects, > > usually the ones that are expected to eventually be their own TLP.) > > > > The Incubator PMC is responsible for supporting what comes in and > > voting > > whether it is ready to graduate. So, once the Lucene PMC votes to > > incubate it, the Incubator PMC will help you figure out exactly > what > > needs to be done and will then vote on graduation. > > > > Hope that helps. > > > > Cliff > > > > On Monday, February 14, 2005 10:58 AM, Erik Hatcher wrote: > > > >> On Feb 14, 2005, at 12:36 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > >>> > >>> On Feb 14, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >>> > All donated code should really go through the Incubator, even if > only to do the required IP checklist. > >>> > >>> Right. > >>> > >>> By my question is why doesn't this go through the Lucene project? > >>> The Lucene PMC could bring the codebase into their project and > >>> register the IP stuff here w/ the incubator. > >> > >> Is there some precedent for this? I'm not sure what is meant by > >> "register the IP stuff here". Could you elaborate on what this > >> entails. > >> > >> I'd gladly bring the codebase into Lucene's repository if that is > the > >> consensus. It was created entirely by Garrett and he's agreed to > >> donate it, so the IP should be pretty clear cut. > >> > >>Erik > >> > >> > >>> > >>> I hope I'm just misunderstanding, but this appears to be a > proposal > >>> to create a new project at the ASF called "Lucene4c" > >>> > >>> geir > >>> > > On Feb 14, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Erik Hatcher wrote: > > > I presume this codebase is substantial enough that it requires > > incubation? Or because it was a single developer, could he > > contribute it directly to the Lucene project and bypass > > incubation? > > > > Erik > > > > > > On Feb 14, 2005, at 8:35 AM, Garrett Rooney wrote: > > > >> I'd like to propose the Lucene4c project for incubation. > >> > >> Lucene4c is a port of the Lucene search engine from Java to C, > >> using the Apache Portable Runtime library for portability. > >> The project is far from complete, and code to date is > >> primarily concerned with reading an existing Lucene index, > >> which must be created with another Lucene implementation > >> (currently only Java Lucene has been tested). The plan is to > >> complete support for the rest of the index format and then > >> move on to implementing search functionality (beyond the > >> current proof of concept code anyway). Once we've reached > >> that point work will begin on actual indexing functionality > >> so that Lucene4c can stand alone, without the use of another > >> Lucene implementation for bootstrapping. > >> > >> The project would be part of the new Lucene top leve project, > >> and Erik Hatcher has offerred to serve as a sponsor. > >> > >> While I have yet to expand the community of developers > >> further than myself, I am anxious to do so, and I expect to > >> be able to draw both from people as of yet unassociated with > >> Lucene who have expressed interest in such a project and from > >> existing Lucene developers who have expressed interest in > >> establishing cross-language compatibility tests for the > >> various Lucene ports. > >> > >> Lucene4c already has ties to existing ASF projects, > >> particularly Lucene itself and APR. Bringing it into the ASF > >> would only strengthen those ties. > >> > >> More details, including where to get the current release or > >> development versions of the code can be found at the Lucene4c > >> web site at http://electricjellyfish.net/garrett/lucene4c/ > >> > >> -garrett > >> > >> > > --- > >> - - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional > >> commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional > > commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROT
Re: [VOTE] Incubate lucene4c?
+1 On Feb 17, 2005, at 6:11 AM, Erik Hatcher wrote: The Incubator requires the Lucene PMC vote on whether to accept the lucene4c codebase. +1 from me. Other Lucene PMC members - please cast your vote on this thread. Erik Begin forwarded message: From: "Cliff Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: February 17, 2005 5:12:36 AM EST To: Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Lucene4c Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Garrett, You're right that all new code bases should come through the Incubator. However, the appropriate PMC to vote on whether it should be accepted into the incubator is the sponsoring PMC, which in this case appears to be the Lucene PMC. (The Incubator PMC does sponsor some projects, usually the ones that are expected to eventually be their own TLP.) The Incubator PMC is responsible for supporting what comes in and voting whether it is ready to graduate. So, once the Lucene PMC votes to incubate it, the Incubator PMC will help you figure out exactly what needs to be done and will then vote on graduation. Hope that helps. Cliff On Monday, February 14, 2005 10:58 AM, Erik Hatcher wrote: On Feb 14, 2005, at 12:36 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: On Feb 14, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: All donated code should really go through the Incubator, even if only to do the required IP checklist. Right. By my question is why doesn't this go through the Lucene project? The Lucene PMC could bring the codebase into their project and register the IP stuff here w/ the incubator. Is there some precedent for this? I'm not sure what is meant by "register the IP stuff here". Could you elaborate on what this entails. I'd gladly bring the codebase into Lucene's repository if that is the consensus. It was created entirely by Garrett and he's agreed to donate it, so the IP should be pretty clear cut. Erik I hope I'm just misunderstanding, but this appears to be a proposal to create a new project at the ASF called "Lucene4c" geir On Feb 14, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Erik Hatcher wrote: I presume this codebase is substantial enough that it requires incubation? Or because it was a single developer, could he contribute it directly to the Lucene project and bypass incubation? Erik On Feb 14, 2005, at 8:35 AM, Garrett Rooney wrote: I'd like to propose the Lucene4c project for incubation. Lucene4c is a port of the Lucene search engine from Java to C, using the Apache Portable Runtime library for portability. The project is far from complete, and code to date is primarily concerned with reading an existing Lucene index, which must be created with another Lucene implementation (currently only Java Lucene has been tested). The plan is to complete support for the rest of the index format and then move on to implementing search functionality (beyond the current proof of concept code anyway). Once we've reached that point work will begin on actual indexing functionality so that Lucene4c can stand alone, without the use of another Lucene implementation for bootstrapping. The project would be part of the new Lucene top leve project, and Erik Hatcher has offerred to serve as a sponsor. While I have yet to expand the community of developers further than myself, I am anxious to do so, and I expect to be able to draw both from people as of yet unassociated with Lucene who have expressed interest in such a project and from existing Lucene developers who have expressed interest in establishing cross-language compatibility tests for the various Lucene ports. Lucene4c already has ties to existing ASF projects, particularly Lucene itself and APR. Bringing it into the ASF would only strengthen those ties. More details, including where to get the current release or development versions of the code can be found at the Lucene4c web site at http://electricjellyfish.net/garrett/lucene4c/ -garrett --- - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- = = = Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else." - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Incubating Lucene.Net
Proposal for new project Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene) George Aroush -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (0) rationale Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene) is a source code port of Jakarta Lucene from Java to C#. The port is a one-to-one port of Lucene's high and low level APIs, public and internal APIs, and the underlying algorithms of Lucene as well as the index format. Every Java file released with Jakarta Lucene is ported to Lucene.Net C#. In addition, any index file generated with Lucene.Net is 100% cross compatible with Jakarta Lucene and via versa. Finally, Lucene.Net preserves the look-and-feel of C#'s naming convention for packages, classes, methods and documentation. Lucene.Net 1.4.3 is currently a six-month-old open source project, and is now hosted at SourceForge.net and is backed by its own non-profit organization. Since Lucene.Net is already based on Jakarta Lucene and thus uses the Apache 2.0 license is therefore an appropriate candidate to be moved to the Apache foundation. I anticipate that Lucene.Net will join the recently proposed search.apache.org top-level project, with Lucene and its various ports. (0.1) criteria Community: Lucene.Net has an established user community. However, the development community currently consists of primarily George Aroush, the submitter of this proposal. Core Developers: Currently, Lucene.Net has one active committer, George Aroush. Alignment: Lucene.Net currently users Visual Studio.Net 2003. In addition, it is being used by Mono. (0.2) warning signs Orphaned products: Lucene.Net is not an orphan. Inexperience with open source: Lucene.Net's committers are experienced with open source. Homogenous developers: Lucene.Net's committers do not all share an employer or nation. All decisions are made openly on public mailing lists. Reliance on salaried developers: Lucene.Net has no salaried developers. No ties to other Apache products: Lucene.Net has strong ties to Lucene. A fascination with the Apache brand: Lucene.Net has a strong brand already. It has followers and projects based on it such as Lookout, .Text, Beagle and Ascirum. (1) scope of the subprojects All code is currently licensed under the same license as Jakarta Lucene which is Apache 2.0 license. I have not yet signed the Contributor License Agreements but I look forward to it. (3) identify the ASF resources to be created (3.1) mailing list(s) Same as Jakarta Lucene (3.2) Subversion or CVS repositories TBD (3.3) Jira TBD (4) identify the initial set of committers Same as Jakarta Lucene. (5) identify apache sponsoring individual Erik Hatcher, Doug Cutting, and Otis Gospodnetic. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating Lucene.Net
George Aroush wrote: Proposal for new project Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene) George Aroush -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (0) rationale Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene) is a source code port of Jakarta Lucene from Java to C#. The port is a one-to-one port of Lucene's high and low level APIs, public and internal APIs, and the underlying algorithms of Lucene as well as the index format. Every Java file released with Jakarta Lucene is ported to Lucene.Net C#. In addition, any index file generated with Lucene.Net is 100% cross compatible with Jakarta Lucene and via versa. Finally, Lucene.Net preserves the look-and-feel of C#'s naming convention for packages, classes, methods and documentation. Lucene.Net 1.4.3 is currently a six-month-old open source project, and is now hosted at SourceForge.net and is backed by its own non-profit organization. Since Lucene.Net is already based on Jakarta Lucene and thus uses the Apache 2.0 license is therefore an appropriate candidate to be moved to the Apache foundation. I anticipate that Lucene.Net will join the recently proposed search.apache.org top-level project, with Lucene and its various ports. Was the current codebase based on the older Lucene.NET project? The one that its authors stopped making available as an open source project? The reason I ask is that I recall that version was under an older version of the Apache License, and I imagine you would require the permission of its authors to relicense it under the newer license. Conceptually I have no objection to bringing in this project, I just want to make sure that the legal bases are covered. -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Incubating Lucene.Net
Hi Garrett, Thanks for your support. No, the port of 1.4.0 and 1.4.3 of dotLucene is from the ground up and has nothing to do with Lucene.Net 1.3. The logs on SourceForge.net shows this. The conflicting question that I have is, Lucene.Net is a better name then dotLucene. On SourceForge.Net we picked dotLucene because LuceneDotNet was taken (the previous developer, back then) So my choice is to call it Lucene.Net instead of dotLucene as it is more appropriate. In addition, the project, including namespace, is referred to as Lucene.Net -- only the distribution package is called dotLucene. Any thoughts on Lucene.Net/dotLucene package name are welcome. Regards, -- George -Original Message- From: Garrett Rooney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 11:22 AM To: Lucene Developers List Subject: Re: Incubating Lucene.Net George Aroush wrote: > Proposal for new project Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene) > > George Aroush -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > -- > > > (0) rationale > > Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene) is a source code port of Jakarta Lucene > from Java to C#. The port is a one-to-one port of Lucene's high and > low level APIs, public and internal APIs, and the underlying > algorithms of Lucene as well as the index format. Every Java file > released with Jakarta Lucene is ported to Lucene.Net C#. In addition, > any index file generated with Lucene.Net is 100% cross compatible with > Jakarta Lucene and via versa. Finally, Lucene.Net preserves the > look-and-feel of C#'s naming convention for packages, classes, methods and documentation. > > Lucene.Net 1.4.3 is currently a six-month-old open source project, and > is now hosted at SourceForge.net and is backed by its own non-profit > organization. Since Lucene.Net is already based on Jakarta Lucene and > thus uses the Apache 2.0 license is therefore an appropriate candidate > to be moved to the Apache foundation. > > I anticipate that Lucene.Net will join the recently proposed > search.apache.org top-level project, with Lucene and its various ports. Was the current codebase based on the older Lucene.NET project? The one that its authors stopped making available as an open source project? The reason I ask is that I recall that version was under an older version of the Apache License, and I imagine you would require the permission of its authors to relicense it under the newer license. Conceptually I have no objection to bringing in this project, I just want to make sure that the legal bases are covered. -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Incubate lucene4c?
+1 Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[VOTE] Re: Incubating Lucene.Net
Lucene.Net has my +1. Other PMC members please cast your vote also. As for Garrett's concerns, it is my understanding that dotLucene is not based the previous Lucene.NET codebase. Though George mentions Lookout, Beagle, and some other projects - are these projects using the dotLucene codebase? I thought that Lookout used the previous Lucene.NET project. George - could you clarify the lineage of your project and list what projects are using it specifically? Also, perhaps we should stick with calling this dotLucene for now to avoid confusion with the other codebase. Erik On Feb 17, 2005, at 11:14 AM, George Aroush wrote: Proposal for new project Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene) George Aroush -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - (0) rationale Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene) is a source code port of Jakarta Lucene from Java to C#. The port is a one-to-one port of Lucene's high and low level APIs, public and internal APIs, and the underlying algorithms of Lucene as well as the index format. Every Java file released with Jakarta Lucene is ported to Lucene.Net C#. In addition, any index file generated with Lucene.Net is 100% cross compatible with Jakarta Lucene and via versa. Finally, Lucene.Net preserves the look-and-feel of C#'s naming convention for packages, classes, methods and documentation. Lucene.Net 1.4.3 is currently a six-month-old open source project, and is now hosted at SourceForge.net and is backed by its own non-profit organization. Since Lucene.Net is already based on Jakarta Lucene and thus uses the Apache 2.0 license is therefore an appropriate candidate to be moved to the Apache foundation. I anticipate that Lucene.Net will join the recently proposed search.apache.org top-level project, with Lucene and its various ports. (0.1) criteria Community: Lucene.Net has an established user community. However, the development community currently consists of primarily George Aroush, the submitter of this proposal. Core Developers: Currently, Lucene.Net has one active committer, George Aroush. Alignment: Lucene.Net currently users Visual Studio.Net 2003. In addition, it is being used by Mono. (0.2) warning signs Orphaned products: Lucene.Net is not an orphan. Inexperience with open source: Lucene.Net's committers are experienced with open source. Homogenous developers: Lucene.Net's committers do not all share an employer or nation. All decisions are made openly on public mailing lists. Reliance on salaried developers: Lucene.Net has no salaried developers. No ties to other Apache products: Lucene.Net has strong ties to Lucene. A fascination with the Apache brand: Lucene.Net has a strong brand already. It has followers and projects based on it such as Lookout, .Text, Beagle and Ascirum. (1) scope of the subprojects All code is currently licensed under the same license as Jakarta Lucene which is Apache 2.0 license. I have not yet signed the Contributor License Agreements but I look forward to it. (3) identify the ASF resources to be created (3.1) mailing list(s) Same as Jakarta Lucene (3.2) Subversion or CVS repositories TBD (3.3) Jira TBD (4) identify the initial set of committers Same as Jakarta Lucene. (5) identify apache sponsoring individual Erik Hatcher, Doug Cutting, and Otis Gospodnetic. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Re: Incubating Lucene.Net
+1 Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
About the license in code...
I'm porting Lucene to Delphi, based in DotLucene. I have setup the proyect in http://sourceforge.net/projects/mutis/. I don't full understand what i can do about the license. What are the limitations. Also, i want to know if can do this in the code: unit PhraseScorer; //Read the license in License.txt and not put the whole license in each unit in the proyect. -- Mario Alejandro Montoya MCP www.solucionesvulcano.com !Obtenga su sitio Web dinámico! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] Re: Incubating Lucene.Net
Hi Erik, Regarding Garrett's concern, I responded to him regarding, so therefore isn't any issue. As for Lookout, Beagle, ets, I know for fact that Beagle, Ascirum and .Text are using dotLucene, I don't know about Lookout. Just do a Google them and you will see. As for the name of the project, I prefer Lucene.Net -- everything in the package is Lucene.Net, the project name is called dotLucene; this is inconsistent but I will take a vote on it. Regards, -- George -Original Message- From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 11:40 AM To: Lucene Developers List Subject: [VOTE] Re: Incubating Lucene.Net Lucene.Net has my +1. Other PMC members please cast your vote also. As for Garrett's concerns, it is my understanding that dotLucene is not based the previous Lucene.NET codebase. Though George mentions Lookout, Beagle, and some other projects - are these projects using the dotLucene codebase? I thought that Lookout used the previous Lucene.NET project. George - could you clarify the lineage of your project and list what projects are using it specifically? Also, perhaps we should stick with calling this dotLucene for now to avoid confusion with the other codebase. Erik On Feb 17, 2005, at 11:14 AM, George Aroush wrote: > Proposal for new project Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene) > > George Aroush -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --- > - > > > (0) rationale > > Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene) is a source code port of Jakarta Lucene > from Java > to C#. The port is a one-to-one port of Lucene's high and low level > APIs, > public and internal APIs, and the underlying algorithms of Lucene as > well as > the index format. Every Java file released with Jakarta Lucene is > ported to > Lucene.Net C#. In addition, any index file generated with Lucene.Net > is > 100% cross compatible with Jakarta Lucene and via versa. Finally, > Lucene.Net preserves the look-and-feel of C#'s naming convention for > packages, classes, methods and documentation. > > Lucene.Net 1.4.3 is currently a six-month-old open source project, and > is > now hosted at SourceForge.net and is backed by its own non-profit > organization. Since Lucene.Net is already based on Jakarta Lucene and > thus > uses the Apache 2.0 license is therefore an appropriate candidate to be > moved to the Apache foundation. > > I anticipate that Lucene.Net will join the recently proposed > search.apache.org top-level project, with Lucene and its various ports. > > (0.1) criteria > > Community: > > Lucene.Net has an established user community. However, the development > community currently consists of primarily George Aroush, the submitter > of > this proposal. > > Core Developers: > > Currently, Lucene.Net has one active committer, George Aroush. > > Alignment: > > Lucene.Net currently users Visual Studio.Net 2003. In addition, it is > being > used by Mono. > > (0.2) warning signs > > Orphaned products: > > Lucene.Net is not an orphan. > > Inexperience with open source: > > Lucene.Net's committers are experienced with open source. > > Homogenous developers: > > Lucene.Net's committers do not all share an employer or nation. All > decisions are made openly on public mailing lists. > > Reliance on salaried developers: > > Lucene.Net has no salaried developers. > > No ties to other Apache products: > > Lucene.Net has strong ties to Lucene. > > A fascination with the Apache brand: > > Lucene.Net has a strong brand already. It has followers and projects > based > on it such as Lookout, .Text, Beagle and Ascirum. > > (1) scope of the subprojects > > All code is currently licensed under the same license as Jakarta Lucene > which is Apache 2.0 license. I have not yet signed the Contributor > License > Agreements but I look forward to it. > > (3) identify the ASF resources to be created > > (3.1) mailing list(s) > > Same as Jakarta Lucene > > (3.2) Subversion or CVS repositories > > TBD > > (3.3) Jira > > TBD > > (4) identify the initial set of committers > > Same as Jakarta Lucene. > > (5) identify apache sponsoring individual > > Erik Hatcher, Doug Cutting, and Otis Gospodnetic. > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Re: Incubating Lucene.Net
+1 Otis --- Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lucene.Net has my +1. > > Other PMC members please cast your vote also. > > As for Garrett's concerns, it is my understanding that dotLucene is > not > based the previous Lucene.NET codebase. Though George mentions > Lookout, Beagle, and some other projects - are these projects using > the > dotLucene codebase? I thought that Lookout used the previous > Lucene.NET project. > > George - could you clarify the lineage of your project and list what > > projects are using it specifically? Also, perhaps we should stick > with > calling this dotLucene for now to avoid confusion with the other > codebase. > > Erik > > On Feb 17, 2005, at 11:14 AM, George Aroush wrote: > > > Proposal for new project Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene) > > > > George Aroush -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --- > > > - > > > > > > (0) rationale > > > > Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene) is a source code port of Jakarta Lucene > > > from Java > > to C#. The port is a one-to-one port of Lucene's high and low > level > > APIs, > > public and internal APIs, and the underlying algorithms of Lucene > as > > well as > > the index format. Every Java file released with Jakarta Lucene is > > > ported to > > Lucene.Net C#. In addition, any index file generated with > Lucene.Net > > is > > 100% cross compatible with Jakarta Lucene and via versa. Finally, > > Lucene.Net preserves the look-and-feel of C#'s naming convention > for > > packages, classes, methods and documentation. > > > > Lucene.Net 1.4.3 is currently a six-month-old open source project, > and > > is > > now hosted at SourceForge.net and is backed by its own non-profit > > organization. Since Lucene.Net is already based on Jakarta Lucene > and > > thus > > uses the Apache 2.0 license is therefore an appropriate candidate > to be > > moved to the Apache foundation. > > > > I anticipate that Lucene.Net will join the recently proposed > > search.apache.org top-level project, with Lucene and its various > ports. > > > > (0.1) criteria > > > > Community: > > > > Lucene.Net has an established user community. However, the > development > > community currently consists of primarily George Aroush, the > submitter > > of > > this proposal. > > > > Core Developers: > > > > Currently, Lucene.Net has one active committer, George Aroush. > > > > Alignment: > > > > Lucene.Net currently users Visual Studio.Net 2003. In addition, it > is > > being > > used by Mono. > > > > (0.2) warning signs > > > > Orphaned products: > > > > Lucene.Net is not an orphan. > > > > Inexperience with open source: > > > > Lucene.Net's committers are experienced with open source. > > > > Homogenous developers: > > > > Lucene.Net's committers do not all share an employer or nation. All > > decisions are made openly on public mailing lists. > > > > Reliance on salaried developers: > > > > Lucene.Net has no salaried developers. > > > > No ties to other Apache products: > > > > Lucene.Net has strong ties to Lucene. > > > > A fascination with the Apache brand: > > > > Lucene.Net has a strong brand already. It has followers and > projects > > based > > on it such as Lookout, .Text, Beagle and Ascirum. > > > > (1) scope of the subprojects > > > > All code is currently licensed under the same license as Jakarta > Lucene > > which is Apache 2.0 license. I have not yet signed the Contributor > > > License > > Agreements but I look forward to it. > > > > (3) identify the ASF resources to be created > > > > (3.1) mailing list(s) > > > > Same as Jakarta Lucene > > > > (3.2) Subversion or CVS repositories > > > > TBD > > > > (3.3) Jira > > > > TBD > > > > (4) identify the initial set of committers > > > > Same as Jakarta Lucene. > > > > (5) identify apache sponsoring individual > > > > Erik Hatcher, Doug Cutting, and Otis Gospodnetic. > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Incubating Lucene.Net
I prefer dotLucene, because it will be less confusing for people new to the project. In Lucene in Action I had to explicitly mention a dead Lucene.NET project on SourceForge, so readers wouldn't mix it with the other one called. ah, see, I don't know which one was dead and which one was alive. Doesn't matter, they are both dead. Anyhow, dotLucene sounds better to me for this reason. Otis > Any thoughts on Lucene.Net/dotLucene package name are welcome. > > Regards, > > -- George - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Incubate lucene4c?
On Thursday 17 February 2005 12:11, Erik Hatcher wrote: > The Incubator requires the Lucene PMC vote on whether to accept the > lucene4c codebase. > > +1 from me. +1 -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Invitations for Plucene, CLucene, PyLucene
Hello, Just wanted to let you know that I sent email to Plucene, CLucene, and PyLucene developers and invited them to follow the steps of dotLucene and Lucene4C and join Lucene at ASF. Hopefully we'll see their emails on this list soon. I will also email Lupy developers and see if they are still interested. Otis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: About the license in code...
Mario, I don't know whether there are some legal requirements that dictate where the license should go. Apache projects typically include the license in the code. On a somewhat related note - if you would like your Lucene port to Delphi to join Lucene project in the future, please keep in mind that the Apache Software Foundation will accept only projects released under the ASF license. Otis --- "Mario Alejandro M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm porting Lucene to Delphi, based in DotLucene. I have setup the > proyect in http://sourceforge.net/projects/mutis/. > > I don't full understand what i can do about the license. What are the > limitations. > > Also, i want to know if can do this in the code: > > unit PhraseScorer; > > //Read the license in License.txt > > and not put the whole license in each unit in the proyect. > -- > Mario Alejandro Montoya > MCP > www.solucionesvulcano.com > !Obtenga su sitio Web dinámico! > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating Lucene.Net
George Aroush wrote: Hi Garrett, Thanks for your support. No, the port of 1.4.0 and 1.4.3 of dotLucene is from the ground up and has nothing to do with Lucene.Net 1.3. The logs on SourceForge.net shows this. Excellent. I'm glad to hear it. The conflicting question that I have is, Lucene.Net is a better name then dotLucene. On SourceForge.Net we picked dotLucene because LuceneDotNet was taken (the previous developer, back then) So my choice is to call it Lucene.Net instead of dotLucene as it is more appropriate. In addition, the project, including namespace, is referred to as Lucene.Net -- only the distribution package is called dotLucene. Any thoughts on Lucene.Net/dotLucene package name are welcome. I don't have any opinion one way or the other on the name, but I will mention that I've always thought it was kind of odd to use something like 'Lucene.Net' as the internal namespace, the .Net portion seems rather redundant, given that you're talking about C# code it's rather obvious that it's .Net, why not simply place it in the Lucene namespace and save some typing? -garrett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating Lucene.Net
George Aroush wrote: Any thoughts on Lucene.Net/dotLucene package name are welcome. I agree that Lucene.Net is a better name. It's more consistent with Lucene Java and Lucene4c, the names for other ports of Lucene. I think it's okay to reclaim the name of an abandonded project, especially if the abandoned project is better known and is substantially similar. The only problem would be if someone else felt that the name Lucene.Net was their property. But the folks at http://searchblackbox.com/ don't use name Lucene.Net anymore. Also, I owned and used the domain lucene.net to refer to Apache's Lucene before the Sourceforge Lucene.Net project started in 8/03, which arguably gives me rights to the name: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.lucene.net/ Doug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubating Lucene.Net
On Thursday 17 February 2005 17:14, George Aroush wrote: > Proposal for new project Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene) +1 -- http://www.danielnaber.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] Re: Incubating Lucene.Net
Hi, > From: George Aroush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > As for Lookout, Beagle, ets, I know for fact that Beagle, > Ascirum and .Text are using dotLucene, I don't know about > Lookout. Just do a Google them and you will see. Lookout use Lucene.Net 1.3.3.1. Pasha Bizhan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Incubating Lucene.Net
Hi, > From: Doug Cutting [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > The only problem would be if someone else felt that the name > Lucene.Net was their property. Read the license and look the source code. Lucene.Net copyrighted to Apache Software Foundation. Pasha Bizhan http://lucenedotnet.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Avoiding duplication in code port
In wonder if the .NET ports around have implemente classes that are only mirrors of the Java and not are necesary for a sucesfully port to .NET is this true? -- Mario Alejandro Montoya MCP www.solucionesvulcano.com !Obtenga su sitio Web dinámico! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Re: Incubating Lucene.Net
+1 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Avoiding duplication in code port
On Feb 17, 2005, at 5:13 PM, Mario Alejandro M. wrote: In wonder if the .NET ports around have implemente classes that are only mirrors of the Java and not are necesary for a sucesfully port to .NET is this true? I don't quite understand your question, but the dotLucene project at Sourceforge is a complete port of Lucene Java to C#. Erik - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
