lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steven Rowe (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-2981) Review and potentially remove unused/unsupported Contribs
Date Wed, 18 May 2011 22:56:47 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2981?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13035826#comment-13035826
] 

Steven Rowe commented on LUCENE-2981:
-------------------------------------

bq. FYI, LEGAL-82 includes mention of Lucene's dependency on a Berkeley DB lib; on that issue,
Sam Ruby says, in answer to the question of the legitimacy of dependency on BDB (along with
other "Category X" works): "the short answer is no".

Hmm, as recorded in LUCENE-1845, Simon Willnauer asked on legal-discuss@a.o specifically about
Lucene's use of a BDB dependency, and [Niclas Hedhman's response|http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200908.mbox/%3Ccaf30e2a0908242133q143f7fc0l1c21130f5f3fcd86@mail.gmail.com%3E]
was actually in support of including the BDB jar as an optional dependency, "provided it is
not shipped with the release and that the user is provided with the information that the BDB
needs to be downloaded separately and advised to review their license."

So: the DB contribs' BDB dependencies do not constitute grounds for slashing and burning them;
other considerations, however, provide sufficient support for this, IMHO.

> Review and potentially remove unused/unsupported Contribs
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2981
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2981
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Grant Ingersoll
>             Fix For: 3.2, 4.0
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-2981.patch
>
>
> Some of our contribs appear to be lacking for development/support or are missing tests.
 We should review whether they are even pertinent these days and potentially deprecate and
remove them.
> One of the things we did in Mahout when bringing in Colt code was to mark all code that
didn't have tests as @deprecated and then we removed the deprecation once tests were added.
 Those that didn't get tests added over about a 6 mos. period of time were removed.
> I would suggest taking a hard look at:
> ant
> db
> lucli
> swing
> (spatial should be gutted to some extent and moved to modules)

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message