lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ciaran Roarty <>
Subject Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
Date Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:57:24 GMT

I've watched the ensuing debate with interest and have offered in the past
to get involved in the Lucene.NET project but had a differing opinion on the
route the project should take.

I think Lucene.NET would benefit from being .NET aware and moving to a newer
version of the Framework; I would be keen to get involved and do this. There
was, however, a dominant view that it should mirror Lucene and this chase
after another project was the main thing to achieve. My suspicion is that
this approach has been taken because the Lucene.NET community is not
defining new approaches to search; it was to get value out of the Lucene
library. In effect, we could just use IKVM and get something similar.

Personally, I'd be up for trying to get the latest Lucene version we can (
i.e. take the current one ) and turn it into a real .NET version for
Framework 4 or 3.5SP1 if required. I think if we identified the core of the
project and focused on that then it could be a quick moving entity. The
non-core parts of the source tree could then move more slowly behind it;
Highlighter, Snowball etc.

I wouldn't want to be involved in a project that chased Lucene's tail


On 29 October 2010 21:48, Grant Ingersoll <> wrote:

> FYI: This message was sent to the lucene-net-dev@lucene.a.o list on Oct.
> 25 and elicited zero replies.  I am sending it here in the hopes that some
> of you will step forward and either bring this project back to life via
> going back to the Incubator or we put it in the Apache Attic and someone can
> take and maintain it somewhere else under a different name per the terms of
> the Apache License.
> ---
> Hi .Netters,
> The Lucene PMC would like to ask everyone involved with .NET if they might
> chime in on the status of this project.  There hasn't been a commit since
> July 2010 (and that one was trivial and there were only 2 in June) and there
> seems to be very little activity on the dev mailing list.  There also has
> not been a release in a long time.  This was brought up at the last Lucene
> Board Report and it doesn't appear that there has been any action since.   A
> community should be able to withstand the loss of a single committer, but
> here it appears that there are no longer any committers willing to work on
> the project.
> In order to remedy the situation, we would like the following things to be
> done:
> 1.  The community needs to show some (sustained) life.  Not just in code,
> but in discussion of the project's future, etc.  We would expect the
> committers to take a leadership role here.
> 2. The community needs to do a real release that is voted on by the PMC.
> 3. The webpage needs to be updated to reflect that those previous "source"
> releases are not real releases and should be taken down.  Likewise, the news
> section should not tout these non-releases as releases.  The website should
> also meet the PMC Branding guidelines recently sent out.
> 4. Identify some new blood for contributors/committers.  Or the current
> committers need to step up more and take a lead role in the community.
> We would like to see action on all of these things by the end of this year.
>  If they can't be met, there will be one of the following actions:
> 1. Go back into Incubation
> 2. Go into the Apache Attic.  If someone wants to take the code base and
> fork it out as a project somewhere else under a new name that does not use
> the Lucene trademark name (since that is owned by the ASF) than that is
> perfectly acceptable under the Apache license.
> If the conditions can be met, we think that the project should spin itself
> out as its own Top Level ASF project with its own PMC so that its future
> direction can be set by the stakeholders of the project and not by the
> larger Lucene project as a whole.
> Sincerely,
> Grant Ingersoll
> On behalf of the Lucene PMC

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message