lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <>
Subject Re: [PMC] Next Steps on Lucene.NET
Date Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:50:29 GMT
The ASF has read-only Git mirrors already and is working on adding RW Git capability.  There
are also already several forks for .NET.  The main problem seems to be lack of committers/contributors
time.  I think the project could be successful at the ASF if they were under their own PMC,
but their doesn't seem to be interest in that either, given the lack of response to suggestions
to go back to the Incubator and do just that.


On Dec 25, 2010, at 1:28 AM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:

> Personally, I would be *very* interested whether moving Lucene.NET to GitHub 
> will make a difference in terms of progress and style of development.  Maybe 
> forking, pull requests, and the whole "social" thing makes it easier for people 
> to participate.  Since Lucene.NET has struggled for years at ASF, this would be 
> a great opportunity to see if the above makes a difference.
> My 0.02 NT
> Otis
> ----
> Sematext :: :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
> Lucene ecosystem search ::
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Grant Ingersoll <>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thu, December 23, 2010 10:41:18 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PMC] Next Steps on Lucene.NET
>> On Dec 21, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>>> :  point, it's either the Attic or Incubator and I'm leaning toward Attic.  
>>> : However, I think it makes sense to give one more chance by  saying:  You 
>>> : have until January 31 to put together a proposal  for going back to the 
>>> : Incubator.  Please see for what such a 
>>> : proposal  entails.
>>> I'm not certain the attic is appropriate -- my  understanding is that it's 
>>> the final resting place for "projects" (TLP,  ie: an entire PMC) that are 
>>> being disolved at a foundation level via  board resolution.
>>> Within a PMC, like Lucene, the decision to  retire a specific sub-projects 
>>> and mailing lists probably doesn't need  to require a board resolution.
>>> but i could be wrong.
>> OK,  I'm not sure either.  I will check.  We could certainly just mothball  it 
>> here, but I don't think that is necessarily what we want either.
>>> In either case, having a hard date seems like a good idea -- i thought  one 
>>> had been established before, but i guess not.
>> The hard date  of addressing the 4 issues was set for the end of the year.   I 
>> don't think  any of them have been addressed.  There was a big discussion for a 
>> while,  but it doesn't seem like anyone has done any of the actual work, even 
>> something  as simple as updating the website.  This next date, in my mind, is to

>> make  it clear that the Lucene PMC is done being responsible for Lucene.NET by 
>> Jan.  31.  I am more than willing to help them move somewhere else, but it is up
>> to them to say where that is.
>> -Grant

Grant Ingersoll

View raw message