lucene-lucene-net-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Mitiaguin <>
Subject Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
Date Sun, 31 Oct 2010 03:07:28 GMT
I've been using Lucene.Net since 2005 and know its history quite well. Just
some comments :

1.  What actually PMC expects ?. Any activity with regular check-ins ? E.g.
there is a stable Lucene.Net  2.9.2 which is accurate clone of Java
counterpart without trying to use more advanced/natural C# features
primarily to make it easier to keep up with Java Lucene.  Hypothetically,
let's assume existing committers decided for whatever reason to implement
NIOFSDirectory somehow  and for the moment and for the next several months
heavily involved in that . Version wise gap is increasing, but there is an
activity. Does it constitute that the project is alive ?
2. As an user I'd prefer just to have Lucene.Net in sync with Java Lucene.
Surely, I can't dictate whether comitters decide to implement NIOFSDirectory
or make codebase more natural for C#  or just primarily try to stay in sync
with Java as close as possible.

I  missed  how the latest versions were synched . My understanding it is
still automatic initial conversion with some refinement/amendment
afterwards.   Would it be possible for several comitters ( if they are found
) incrementally make Lucene.Net 3.0.2 ? If not there is a dependency of this
project on one man   and repeat it again far from fun, but  no idea how to
get out of this vicious cycle .


On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Digy <> wrote:

> Hi Grant, George and all Lucene.Net community,
> As a Lucene.Net committer, I didn't quit the project, but stopped
> deliberately answering the questions and making commits to show no other
> committers were willing to keep the project alive.(like Apache Board
> Report.
> The only response from commiters was after Grant's mail.)
> So, If there are people willing to keep Lucene.Net alive, I am in, but I
> don't want to be the only one.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll []
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 11:48 PM
> To:
> Cc: Lucene mailing list;
> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
> 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