lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <>
Subject Re: [PMC] [DISCUSS] Lucy
Date Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:25:13 GMT

On Jun 15, 2010, at 2:09 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:

> On 06/15/2010 10:48 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>> Sounds like Doug is saying we should get a rough consensus from the PMC
>> on whether we want to put more effort into Lucy - not just abide its
>> existence as seems to have been the case.
> Yes, but, to be clear, I don't think it's a huge effort, no more effort than the Incubator
PMC puts in.  You should get regualar reports, read them, and make sure they demonstrate progress
towards graduation and, if they don't, provide advice.
> The Incubator has a checklist for graduation.  Lucy should make steady progress on these
same steps.
> Ideally the Lucy folks would be pro-active and directly pursue and document their progress
towards these.  Failing that, the Lucene PMC must prod them.  If they consistently fail to
respond to prods with demonstrated progress, then they should leave.  Or if the PMC is unwilling
to monitor and prod they should leave.
> In the past, we've seen good responses to prods.  So perhaps the vote is just whether
the PMC is willing to keep prodding.

<devil's advocate>
I guess a big question I have is how does Lucy actually relate to Lucene?  OK, it is a search
library that was "inspired by" Lucene.  But, AFAICT, and Marvin, please correct me, it doesn't
share the file format and it doesn't share the API as those have diverged a fair bit ago.
 It also doesn't share users or devs.  
</devil's advocate>

I ask those things, b/c I think the answers will help us understand better whether this is
something the Lucene PMC is interested in status checking, etc, to which it hasn't shown a
track record of doing to date.

View raw message