[Lucene.Net] JIRA issues for Java Lucene changes
Troy, I will start adding separate JIRA issues tonight. In the past do all the Java Lucene issues translate into .Net issues? Scott On Wed, Feb 23, 2011at 2:20 PM ,Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] wrote: Scott, I would say the first task would be to collect all the Java changes up and create separate JIRA issues for each one. Thanks, Troy On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Lombard, Scott slomb...@kingindustries.com wrote: I am on vacation next week. So I won't be very helpful the next couple of days. I will be able take on some things for the 2.9.4 release. Are we going to break down the Java Lucene changes to individual items that need to be ported or is it going to be handled as one big task? Scott -Original Message- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 3:32 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net Tasks due by 2/28 All, I've recently been updating JIRA a lot and that's causing a lot of noise on the dev list. Also, because of that noise, I fear that some of the more important details of those changes might be passing by unnoticed. Mostly, I'm trying to get the project cleaned up by the end of the month. The goal is that March will represent a month of building out our new infrastructure and creating our first new release as a team (2.9.4). To that end, I'd like to resolve some of the outstanding questions about tooling so we can get started building out solutions with those tools. Also, I'd like to see our new status and efforts announced publicly, but I'm hesitant to draw much attention to the project until the website is updated. Additionally, I'd like to take a moment to apologize a bit for moving at such a rapid pace. I realize this is not sustainable and could cause some people to feel alienated if they don't have the time or energy right this second to match that pace. I also feel a bit self-conscious and am concerned that I'm being a little to much 'me', and perhaps not enough 'we'. I have been taking a lot of liberty regarding the project direction, bypassing some opportunities for community discussion and voting, in the interests of pushing the project forward and catching up a bit of lost time. Once we get past this initial push, I hope that we can slow down a bit, and maintain a healthy forward-moving pace with plenty of time allotted for discussion, group decision making and voting. The Apache Way is the way this project will succeed and thrive, and that requires all of us. So, that said, the outstanding tasks, which we can hopefully complete by next Monday are: Troy Howard: LUCENENET-381 - Official release of Lucene.Net 2.9.2 Sergey Mirvoda: LUCENENET-398 - LUCENENET-391 Prepare the code for ingestion Michael Herndon: LUCENENET-400 - Evaluate tooling for continuous integration server Prescott Nasser: LUCENENET-379 - Clean up Lucene.Net website LUCENENET-379 / LUCENENET-403 - Improve site layout and design LUCENENET-379 / LUCENENET-402 - Update website to reflect current status and information LUCENENET-379 / LUCENENET-401 - Update website to be Apache CMS based Alex Thompson: LUCENENET-380 - Evaluate Sharpen as a port tool Does anyone feel less than confident about being able to complete those tasks on that schedule? Need any help? Want to change assignments? Anyone in the community want to get involved as a contributor on any of these tasks (or any of the open tasks in JIRA that are not listed here)? Sergey could probably use some help on Luke.Net. Prescott has a lot of work cut out for him on the website. Perhaps we should get the ball rolling on 2.9.4 task assignments for everyone else? Thanks, Troy 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. 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
RE: [Lucene.Net] JIRA issues for Java Lucene changes
You're probably right DIGY. I will take a look at issues and create JIRA issues where the complexity deems it appropriate. I will comment or patch otherwise. Scott -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 5:02 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] JIRA issues for Java Lucene changes In the time needed to create 10s of issues, half of the fixes could be done :) DIGY -Original Message- From: Lombard, Scott [mailto:slomb...@kingindustries.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 11:36 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [Lucene.Net] JIRA issues for Java Lucene changes Troy, I will start adding separate JIRA issues tonight. In the past do all the Java Lucene issues translate into .Net issues? Scott On Wed, Feb 23, 2011at 2:20 PM ,Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] wrote: Scott, I would say the first task would be to collect all the Java changes up and create separate JIRA issues for each one. Thanks, Troy On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Lombard, Scott slomb...@kingindustries.com wrote: I am on vacation next week. So I won't be very helpful the next couple of days. I will be able take on some things for the 2.9.4 release. Are we going to break down the Java Lucene changes to individual items that need to be ported or is it going to be handled as one big task? Scott -Original Message- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 3:32 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net Tasks due by 2/28 All, I've recently been updating JIRA a lot and that's causing a lot of noise on the dev list. Also, because of that noise, I fear that some of the more important details of those changes might be passing by unnoticed. Mostly, I'm trying to get the project cleaned up by the end of the month. The goal is that March will represent a month of building out our new infrastructure and creating our first new release as a team (2.9.4). To that end, I'd like to resolve some of the outstanding questions about tooling so we can get started building out solutions with those tools. Also, I'd like to see our new status and efforts announced publicly, but I'm hesitant to draw much attention to the project until the website is updated. Additionally, I'd like to take a moment to apologize a bit for moving at such a rapid pace. I realize this is not sustainable and could cause some people to feel alienated if they don't have the time or energy right this second to match that pace. I also feel a bit self-conscious and am concerned that I'm being a little to much 'me', and perhaps not enough 'we'. I have been taking a lot of liberty regarding the project direction, bypassing some opportunities for community discussion and voting, in the interests of pushing the project forward and catching up a bit of lost time. Once we get past this initial push, I hope that we can slow down a bit, and maintain a healthy forward-moving pace with plenty of time allotted for discussion, group decision making and voting. The Apache Way is the way this project will succeed and thrive, and that requires all of us. So, that said, the outstanding tasks, which we can hopefully complete by next Monday are: Troy Howard: LUCENENET-381 - Official release of Lucene.Net 2.9.2 Sergey Mirvoda: LUCENENET-398 - LUCENENET-391 Prepare the code for ingestion Michael Herndon: LUCENENET-400 - Evaluate tooling for continuous integration server Prescott Nasser: LUCENENET-379 - Clean up Lucene.Net website LUCENENET-379 / LUCENENET-403 - Improve site layout and design LUCENENET-379 / LUCENENET-402 - Update website to reflect current status and information LUCENENET-379 / LUCENENET-401 - Update website to be Apache CMS based Alex Thompson: LUCENENET-380 - Evaluate Sharpen as a port tool Does anyone feel less than confident about being able to complete those tasks on that schedule? Need any help? Want to change assignments? Anyone in the community want to get involved as a contributor on any of these tasks (or any of the open tasks in JIRA that are not listed here)? Sergey could probably use some help on Luke.Net. Prescott has a lot of work cut out for him on the website. Perhaps we should get the ball rolling on 2.9.4 task assignments for everyone else? Thanks, Troy 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
RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
I agree with DIGY. Although why wait until after the official release? Scott -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since v2.0 and people have to compile the source by yourselves it has been good to support older versions of VS. But after having an offical release, we could update the trunk to support VS2010. Now for each change in trunk (for v2.9.3, 2.9.4 2.9.5) we have to update another repository also. DIGY -Original Message- From: pnas...@apache.org [mailto:pnas...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:11 PM To: lucene-net-comm...@lucene.apache.org Subject: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Author: pnasser Date: Fri Feb 18 20:10:54 2011 New Revision: 1072121 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1072121view=rev Log: (empty) Added: incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ - copied from r1069573, incubator/lucene.net/trunk/ 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.
Bug Fixes for Lucene.Net versions before 2.9.2
What is the group's feeling on bug fixes on problems found in versions before 2.9.2? Scott 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.
Lucene.Net JIRA
What is the best way to organize the JIRA? It seems to me that there are a lot of great ideas in the 20 open action items. How do we fit them into the roadmap that was defined incubation proposal? Scott 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.
RE: Incubator Infra: JIRA
+1for dev list From: Troy Howard [thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 2:35 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator Infra: JIRA +1 for dev list On Feb 1, 2011 6:52 AM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.com wrote: +1 for dev list. -Original Message- From: digy digy digyd...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:31:23 To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator Infra: JIRA Lucene.Net users sometimes discuss the same issue in both JIRA and dev mailing list. And people mostly don't subscribe to commit list(I wouldn't also subscribe to commit-list, if I weren't a committer since it is full of spam :) ). So I would prefer leaving it as is. DIGY On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Sergey Mirvoda ser...@mirvoda.com wrote: Hello Stefan. As for me I think JIRA notifications should go to the commits list. On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote: Hi, I know JIRA is already in place. Right now all notifications seem to go to the dev list while on other projects I'm onvolved in the notifications go to the commits list. Is this a consciuos choice you want to keep? Also, is anybody around here JIRA admin (at least for LUCENENET)? I currently am not. Stefan -- --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda 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.
RE: Proposal Status, Initial Committors List, Contributors List
On 2011-01-26, Stefan Bodewig wrote: On 2011-01-26, Michael Herndon wrote: Is there anything else that needs to be submitted or that we are waiting on to call for a vote? Everything is in place, IMHO. I've seen Grant thinks you need one more mentor but other proposals have passed the vote with two mentors before (like the currently voted on EasyAnt proposal). If you really think you need a third mentor, ask again on the incubator general mailing list but change the subject ;-) [otherwise people will ignore it since it seems to be discussing details of the proposal]. Anything we should be looking at doing in short term/mean time while that is taking place ? Hopefully the restart will attract new people so prepare to answer a few question that you think you have already discusses to death in the past. People will not go and read the archives. It might be best to put some answers into a FAQ you can point people to. Newbie questions I considered to ask but deferred until I find time to search the archives (you are giving me a free ride right now, thanks): * have you considered IKVM rather than a line-by-line translation? The end idea is to port Lucene with both an automated line-by-line and have a branch that provides a port to use .NET specific functions. I assume that IKVM would not allow for the .NET centric version? * what is the target C#/.NET version? Currently the project is a VS 2005 project using .net 2.0. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-377 talks about changing the project to VS 2010 and it is still being resolved. As .NET features are being added the .NET version will be upgraded to meet the feature requests. * is Mono support a goal? Mono support is a goal. Robert Jordan has committed to take the lead on that aspect. and there'll be more common questions. Stefan I will add my comments to a Wiki creating an FAQ page. Once I find the Wiki. Feel free to revise or comment on any of my responses. Scott 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.
Lucene.NET Wiki
Troy referenced http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-lucene/lucene.Net in the proposal so I am going to go with that. I will am going to create some stuff feel free to edit. Scott -Original Message- From: mhern...@amptools.net [mailto:mhern...@amptools.net] On Behalf Of Michael Herndon Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:37 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Proposal Status, Initial Committors List, Contributors List supposedly the wiki used to be:http://wiki.apache.org/lucene.net/ according to http://incubator.apache.org/projects/lucene.net.html but thats currently not resolving. 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.
RE: RE: Vote thread started on gene...@lucene.apache.org
Marco, My feeling would be to create strong automated conversion tools to allow java Lucene to be ported in to .NET in as few steps and as possible. The .net style goal is a noble one, but will require a significant more commitment to the project in the future. As each new version of java Lucene will have to be integrated by hand into the .net version. As the conversion tools get more advanced and robust .net style code may be implemented as part of the automated conversion process. Scott -Original Message- From: Marco Dissel [mailto:marco.dis...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 1:16 PM To: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: RE: Vote thread started on gene...@lucene.apache.org 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
RE: RE: Vote thread started on gene...@lucene.apache.org
From everything that was said it seems apparent to me that the only way for Lucene.Net to stay alive is to move back to incubation. So where do we go from here? More than 4 people have said they are willing to be committers. Is this email list the best place to start working on a proposal, should it be done between a small group offline or is there a way that the community can work on it together? Thoughts? Scott -Original Message- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:22 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Cc: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: RE: Vote thread started on gene...@lucene.apache.org 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
RE: Initial committers list for Incubator Proposal
Troy, Thank you for all your work on the Incubator Proposal you have done an excellent job. I volunteered to be a committer and here is my brief qualification list. I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and currently work in the Automation field. I do extensive programming in MS SQL, ASP.NET, C# primarily to provide useful and pertinent information to my users, from data that is stored in many places and usually from legacy products. Currently I have been using Lucene.Net in a web application I developed to collate data stored in multiple Access databases to give users a simplified interface to our data. I am personally interested in the challenge of developing and documenting an automated process to convert Java Lucene to C#. The work I will be doing for the Lucene.NET project will be done for the most part outside of my job. As a committer I would have adequate time to devote to the project. I look forward to being an active member of the Lucene.Net project. Scott From: Troy Howard [thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 7:01 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org Subject: Initial committers list for Incubator Proposal All, I'm working on the Incubator Proposal now, and need to establish a list of initial committers. So far, the following people have come forward and offered to be committers (in alphabetical order): Alex Thompson Ben Martz Chris Currens Heath Aldrich Michael Herndon Prescott Nasser Scott Lombard Simone Chiaretta Troy Howard I would like to place an open request for any interested parties to respond to this message with their request to be a Committer. For people who are either on that list or for people who would like to be added, please send a message explaining (briefly) why you think you will be qualified to be involved in the project and specifically what ways you hope to be able to contribute. One thing I would like to point out is that in the Apache world there is a distinction between Committers and Contributors (aka developers). See this link for details: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/participation.html#committer Please consider whether or not you wish to be a Committer or a Contributor. Some quick rules of thumb: Committers: - Committers must be willing to submit a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). See: http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas - Committers must have enough *consistent* free time to fulfill the expectations of the ASF in terms of reporting, process, documentation and remain responsive to the community in terms of communication and listening to, considering, and discussing community opinion. These kinds of tasks can consume a lot of time and are some of the first things people stop down when they start running out of time. - A Committer may not even write code, but may simply accept, review and commit code written by others. This is the primary responsibility of a Committer -- to commit code, whether they wrote it themselves or not - Committers may have to perform the unpleasant task of reject contribution from Contributors and explain why in a fair and objective manner. This can be frustrating and time consuming. You may need to play the part of a mentor or engage in debates. You may even be proved wrong and have to swallow your pride. - Committers have direct access to the source control and other resources and so must be personally accountable for the quality of the same and will need to operate under the process and restrictions ASF expects Contributors: - Contributors might have a lot of free time this month, but get really busy next month and have no time at all. They can develop code in short bursts but then drop off the face of the planet indefinitely after that. - Contributors could focus on code only or work from a task list without any need to interact with and be accountable to the community (as this is the responsibility of the Committers) - Contributors can do one-time or infrequently needed tasks like updating the website, documentation, wikis, etc.. - Contributors will need to have anything they create reviewed by a Committer and ultimately included by a Committer. Some people find this frustrating, if the Committers are slow to respond or critical of their work. So in your responses, please be clear about whether you would like to offer your help as a Committer or as a Contributor. Thanks, Troy 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
