Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:18:11 -0700
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PMC] [DISCUSS] Lucy
Message-ID: <20100615051811.GA7076@rectangular.com>
References: <3A7AC73A-4448-42AF-875D-2D6D5A4762EC@apache.org>
 <alpine.DEB.1.10.1006141641180.15766@radix.cryptio.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1006141641180.15766@radix.cryptio.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
From: Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 05:16:46PM -0700, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> I'm having a hard time wrapping my head arround the idea of Lucy moving 
> from the Lucene TLP to the Incubator TLP.  It probably would have made 
> sense for Lucy start in the Incubator years ago, but I'm not really sure 
> what value that would add now given the status quo.  Would the Incubator 
> TLP be in a better position to help build the Lucy community then the 
> Lucene TLP?  Would it have more visibility then it does now?  Would the 
> Incubator PMC even *accept* Lucy since there are no IP issues, and the 
> existing committers/community are allready ASF commiters/community?

I have my doubts about whether moving to the Incubator would be a net gain for
Lucy at this point.  It's more that I accept that Lucy has to abide by the
rules laid down by the ASF.

> My suggestion would be that Lucy stay in the Lucene TLP, and that the Lucy 
> development community focus on more *community* driven goals and less code 
> driven goals until the community reaches a size that is self sustainable 
> so that it can graduate to a TLP (ie: add committers, build a user base, 
> have a release -- even if it's a 0.1 release with APIs that are subject to 
> change, etc....).  

A release in the reasonably near future is doable, and API maturity needn't
be a major concern.  One of the achievements of the last year was a new
backwards compatibility policy of forking stable branches into new namespaces
(e.g.  Lucy1, Lucy2) while keeping the main namespace "Lucy" as an unstable
trunk.  We've been auditioning that policy using KinoSearch and so far
response has been positive.

> If i wasn't so behind on my email, i would have suggested/recommended that 
> we raise this quetsion in our Board report this month, and specificly ask 
> the Board for their guidance on the "move to Incubator" idea (since 
> they're the ones pushing against umbrella projects)

I wonder if there are any other subprojects out there in Lucy's position.  It
might be a unique situation.

Marvin Humphrey