lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Hostetter <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Archive Lucy
Date Sun, 08 Mar 2009 22:17:14 GMT

: 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.

I don't really believe that's a fair characterization of the comments made 
in this thread.

The fundemental issue is really wether Lucy, as a project, is "alive".  

This is not about wether progress is being made towards a good C Library 
for search, or wether there have been good design discussions to further 
that goal, or wether there has been good collaboration amongst various 
people towrds common goals that can be implimented in multiple projects -- 
the answers to all of those questions may be "yes" (and i genuinely 
believe that they are) but that doesn't mean that Lucy, as a project, is 

: 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.

Marvin, I respect your opinion.  If you believe that the best long term 
strategy towards making Lucy into a solid project is to first focus on 
KinoSearch, then I have faith in your judgement -- but from my 
perspective, that seems like a strong argument in favor of archiving Lucy 
at this time and reviving it at a future date when you feel the time is 
right to bring he apprpriate code from KS into the apache fold via 
software grant.

: >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.  :(

At this point (from my perspective) Lucy as a project is not "alive" ... 
that doesn't mean i don't respect your participation in Lucene as a whole, 
and I do recognize that you've been making a lot of progress; but one man 
isn't a community, and KS isn't Lucy.  I don't see a zero, I see a large 
blank area that can be filled later, but for now it confuses people.

It seems to me that (to borrow a cliche) Lucy was an idea ahead of it's 
time, so we should be honest to the world (and ourselves) about the state 
of things. If people want to work on a project developing a C search 
library with bindings for dynamic langauges let's not frustrate them with 
a 3 year old website, and ghost town mailing lists and code base -- 
instead let's encourage and promote groth in the internals of KinoSearch, 
so that at a future point we can revive the Lucy project, with a healthy 
developer community.

This discussion isn't about "killing" a project -- it's not an execution 
-- it's about acknowledge that Lucy hasn't really been born yet.


View raw message