lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Archive Lucy
Date Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:15:52 GMT

On Mar 7, 2009, at 3:54 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 03:02:22AM +0100, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>> Please give me two to three months to make the next dev release of  
>>> KinoSearch.
>>
>> What will happen then?
>
> The next dev release of KS will present real world implementations  
> of many
> designs that have been discussed in Lucene and Lucy forums over the  
> last year.
>
> Some might see that as "progress". ;)

That is progress on KS, not Lucy.


>
>
>> When and how is Lucy development going to start?
>
> It *is* actively progressing.  It's just that neither you nor Grant  
> are
> willing to acknowledge that any of the design work I just did (in  
> happy
> collaboration with Java Lucene devs) applies to Lucy.
>
> Please go read <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1458>  
> and see if
> you can still assert after you read it that no work is being done on  
> Lucy.  I
> warn you, it is a long thread. :)
>
>> You mention that in many cases other forums have been better for
>> discussing related design issues. What's the benefit of keeping the
>> Lucy project alive if there's next to no code or even discussion
>> there?
>
> The proposal remains sound, and there is a deep hunger out there for  
> a solid C
> IR library similar to Lucene.  The KS-then-Lucy progression is the  
> fastest and
> best way to get there.
>
> Things would have gone more smoothly and quickly if Dave Balmain had  
> been able
> to contribute more, but even with that setback, we will still reach  
> the
> finish.
>
>> I'm sure that everyone here would love to see Lucy become more  
>> active.
>> How could we help make that happen?
>
> Help Mike McCandless and Jason Rutherglen finish up their work on  
> the designs
> we've all been discussing.  This is a multi-way collaboration, and  
> Lucy
> benefits when I'm able to study alternatate implementations, just as  
> Java
> Lucene benefits from being able to see what other projects have done.
>
> Cross-pollination has worked very well in the past.  The indexing  
> speedups a
> while back started with McCandless riffing on the KinoSearch merge  
> model.  (He
> followed that up with plenty of interesting innovating on his own.)
>
>> As a wild idea: would there be interest in bringing the KinoSearch
>> codebase over to Apache through incubation?
>
> My main reservation is that I really want to see KS and Lucy play out
> sequentially, because I want Lucy to benefit from having seen how  
> the features
> now in KS work in the real world.  There's no sane versioning under  
> Perl/CPAN.
> You can't move from Lucy version 1 to Lucy version 2 without  
> screwing over
> your users, and therefore I don't want to merge the two projects  
> into one
> namespace.  If we did that, the unified project has to stay as an  
> "alpha" for
> that much longer, and it never really gets the benefit of seeing how a
> real-world release goes.
>
> If, then, we're proceeding sequentially as I recommend, I don't see  
> how
> putting KS through incubation does anything but slow us down.  All  
> we're doing
> is adding extra hoops to jump through.  It might be politically  
> expedient, but
> the engineer in me rebels at the waste, as does the loyal employee.
>
> From my perspective, what we have is an optics problem.  I'm working  
> full
> time, and I've been plenty active in the Lucene forums, but you and  
> Grant only
> see a big fat zero.  :(

It's not that you aren't doing good stuff Marvin.  You are.  I love  
your discussions on Lucene Java and you are no doubt doing interesting  
stuff on KS.  It's just that, as Jukka, has pointed out, Lucy has seen  
absolutely zero of this effort for over three years.  How long do we  
hang on to your promise?  And, it is only you doing so.  That is not a  
community and not a definition of an Apache project.  It's fine for KS  
b/c that doesn't live in Apache.  It's not fine for Lucy, IMO.   
Sorry.  Heck, you and Nathan having a two person discussion on Lucy- 
dev on a regular basis would be enough to satisfy this.

-Grant


Mime
View raw message