lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Archive Lucy
Date Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:57:06 GMT

On Mar 6, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Peter Karman wrote:
> So I would hate to see the idea of Lucy mothballed. Whether KS still
> bears enough resemblance to Lucene to be called a 'loose port' is
> probably debate-able, and so for reasons of [political] identity  
> perhaps
> it doesn't belong under the Lucene umbrella anymore. But I know the
> cross-fertilization of ideas between the Lucene and KS developers has
> been significant, and the idea of a core C IR library with the  
> features
> that KS has is very appealing (at least to me).

My suggestion is, then, that you start making yourself heard on the  
Lucy mailing lists and start discussing ideas there more.

> I'll leave it to Marvin to comment on whether he's ready to commit  
> code
> to Lucy and/or if that's still the appropriate vehicle for his vision.

My understanding of the ASF is such that I don't believe it is proper  
for him to do so without either filling out a Software Grant or going  
through incubation.  I'd be happy to be corrected and I'd be happy to  
help guide the process if I am right and Marvin is willing to donate  
some large chunk of code that has been developed elsewhere.

Thus, if there are core parts of KS that are going to come from Lucy,  
then those parts need to be developed in the Lucy community by Lucy  
community members and not in KS first and not by one person in a  
(near) complete vacuum (unless we go the donation route.)

There is nothing preventing the further cross-fertilization of ideas  
between Lucene and KS, though.  We always welcome Marvin's input on  
discussions about how best to implement ideas (and anyone elses, for  
that matter) and I see no reason why mothballing Lucy would prevent  
the discussion of ideas that so often takes place on the Lucene lists.


View raw message