lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Karman <pe...@peknet.com>
Subject re: [DISCUSS] Archive Lucy
Date Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:06:36 GMT
Grant wrote:
Therefore, it is with some hesitation that I suggest we mothball
Lucy.  Mostly, I hesitate, because I hate to see any project be
archived on the hope that someone will come in and pick it up.
However, I just don't see that happening.  If Marvin wishes to
resurrect it, he can donate KS (or whatever core part of it is Lucy)
and go through incubation and prove there is a community and then we
can turn it back on.


Hi Grant,

I just subscribed to this list because I saw your post to the lucy-dev
list, where I have been subscribed since the project started. Thanks for
initiating this conversation.

It's true that Lucy still has no code. I am seeing at least a half-dozen
daily commits to KS svn however, and I know that Marvin still plans to
donate the core C pieces of that project to Lucy. KS has gained a lot of
traction in the Perl user community, even if the number of committers is
low (e.g., I have a commit bit on KS svn but haven't contributed much in
the last year).

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).

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.

pek
-- 
Peter Karman  .  peter@peknet.com  .  http://peknet.com/


Mime
View raw message