Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

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

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Heath Aldrich <ha...@aes2.com>]

For Grant or anyone who understands the answer.

I have a question about the name "Lucene.net"

Why is this linked to the ASF?
What is the benefit that the ASF gets from holding onto the name?

If the project goes into the attic and forks to CodePlex (ideology of *how* we port from java aside), why does ASF feel the need to keep the name?  If it is simply in the attic, it doesn't seem like it is really doing any good.

In the end, seems to me if the ASF doesn't want projects to suffer from "bitrot", then why not allow a project to move where the developers feel it is best suited...   Even if there is a nominal transfer fee to keep the name.   If that is ASF, great, if that is elsewhere, I'm not sure why they really care.

Just seems to be a point I don't understand.

-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 11:15 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

Just to be clear, there is a third option in all of this besides Attic or Incubator and it is what I wrote in the original email.  Remedy the 4 items (quoted below) and then go to the Board to be a Top Level Project.  Clearly, the life in this thread shows that #1 can be met if people are willing to back up their words with action (i.e. patches and discussion, etc.) and continue to show up on a regular basis not just as users but as contributors.  That action could very quickly lead to #2 and #3.  Action by some people on #2 and #3 then leads to #4, new blood in the project.  I think with 4-6 active committers and some sustained life and a clear process for doing the port, this would be a fine TLP and the community can then sink or swim on it's own.

As I said in the original email (quoted below), you have until the end of the year.  If the community withers away at this point, Lucene.NET will go into the Attic. If it steps up, it should be a viable TLP and can control it's own destiny under the PMC of it's choosing.

At this point, I'm going to _try_ to stop responding to this thread and let you all work out what you want to do as a community.  I believe I've made it clear the actions that need to be taken to show that there is a viable community here.  I also believe those actions are not onerous (some of them could have been fixed in the time it takes to read all the threads on this email) as I outlined above.

I will rely on George, as the PMC representative for this project, to report back to the PMC on the actions taken by the community to remedy the items below or to state that the community wishes to go either to the Incubator (a vote might be worthwhile here) or to the Attic and fork somewhere else under a different name.  If there is no report back by that time (call it January 1, 2011) or no positive action to move the project forward in a healthy and sustainable way, then I will call a PMC vote to move Lucene.NET into the Apache Attic and then take the necessary steps to do so (and this is not something I want to do.)  

-Grant


>> 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.
> 

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

Just to be clear, there is a third option in all of this besides Attic or Incubator and it is what I wrote in the original email.  Remedy the 4 items (quoted below) and then go to the Board to be a Top Level Project.  Clearly, the life in this thread shows that #1 can be met if people are willing to back up their words with action (i.e. patches and discussion, etc.) and continue to show up on a regular basis not just as users but as contributors.  That action could very quickly lead to #2 and #3.  Action by some people on #2 and #3 then leads to #4, new blood in the project.  I think with 4-6 active committers and some sustained life and a clear process for doing the port, this would be a fine TLP and the community can then sink or swim on it's own.

As I said in the original email (quoted below), you have until the end of the year.  If the community withers away at this point, Lucene.NET will go into the Attic. If it steps up, it should be a viable TLP and can control it's own destiny under the PMC of it's choosing.

At this point, I'm going to _try_ to stop responding to this thread and let you all work out what you want to do as a community.  I believe I've made it clear the actions that need to be taken to show that there is a viable community here.  I also believe those actions are not onerous (some of them could have been fixed in the time it takes to read all the threads on this email) as I outlined above.

I will rely on George, as the PMC representative for this project, to report back to the PMC on the actions taken by the community to remedy the items below or to state that the community wishes to go either to the Incubator (a vote might be worthwhile here) or to the Attic and fork somewhere else under a different name.  If there is no report back by that time (call it January 1, 2011) or no positive action to move the project forward in a healthy and sustainable way, then I will call a PMC vote to move Lucene.NET into the Apache Attic and then take the necessary steps to do so (and this is not something I want to do.)  

-Grant


>> 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.
> 

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

Just to be clear, there is a third option in all of this besides Attic or Incubator and it is what I wrote in the original email.  Remedy the 4 items (quoted below) and then go to the Board to be a Top Level Project.  Clearly, the life in this thread shows that #1 can be met if people are willing to back up their words with action (i.e. patches and discussion, etc.) and continue to show up on a regular basis not just as users but as contributors.  That action could very quickly lead to #2 and #3.  Action by some people on #2 and #3 then leads to #4, new blood in the project.  I think with 4-6 active committers and some sustained life and a clear process for doing the port, this would be a fine TLP and the community can then sink or swim on it's own.

As I said in the original email (quoted below), you have until the end of the year.  If the community withers away at this point, Lucene.NET will go into the Attic. If it steps up, it should be a viable TLP and can control it's own destiny under the PMC of it's choosing.

At this point, I'm going to _try_ to stop responding to this thread and let you all work out what you want to do as a community.  I believe I've made it clear the actions that need to be taken to show that there is a viable community here.  I also believe those actions are not onerous (some of them could have been fixed in the time it takes to read all the threads on this email) as I outlined above.

I will rely on George, as the PMC representative for this project, to report back to the PMC on the actions taken by the community to remedy the items below or to state that the community wishes to go either to the Incubator (a vote might be worthwhile here) or to the Attic and fork somewhere else under a different name.  If there is no report back by that time (call it January 1, 2011) or no positive action to move the project forward in a healthy and sustainable way, then I will call a PMC vote to move Lucene.NET into the Apache Attic and then take the necessary steps to do so (and this is not something I want to do.)  

-Grant


>> 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.
> 

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Gustavo Sandrigo <gu...@gmail.com>]

I would like to help as well.
I would like some guidance on how the project is setup and also how to
handle committing fixes.
I am offering to help fix bugs until I feel comfortable enough with the
codebase to help with migrating new features from Lucene.

If you want to take me up on my offer, please contact me at this email.

Thanks

Gustavo Sandrigo

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Arne Claassen <ar...@mindtouch.com> wrote:

> Robert,
>
> I think i was even aware of that at the time, it's just that currently our
> minimum mono requirement is still 2.4, so i'd stayed with lucene.net 2.4
> for the time being.
>
> Ok, with that out of the way, what's the best way to get involved? Start
> digging into open issues?
>
> Also, out of curiosity, what is the process for syncing up with the java
> lucene source for future releases? That is one aspect of a project like
> Lucene.NET that i've always found daunting and would love to know how its
> approached to make it manageable.
>
> thanks,
>
> Arne Claassen
>
> MindTouch
> San Diego, CA
> http://twitter.com/sdether
>
> On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:44 AM, Robert Jordan wrote:
>
>  On 30.10.2010 17:29, Arne Claassen wrote:
>>
>>> If one of the present comitters can point me to some guidance on what is
>>> the best way I can start contributing and what the apache process is. I
>>> can tackle bugs and ensure lucene.net works well on mono. We're
>>> currently using 2.4.2 since last time i tried 2.9.1 (back in May) it had
>>> issues with mono, so i guess fixing whatever caused that problem (if it
>>> still exists) would be a good introduction to contributing.
>>>
>>
>> The issue you were reporting  was caused by a Mono 2.4 bug.
>>
>> All other Mono issues were fixed back in April/May.
>>
>> The unit tests of the current trunk are passing under Mono 2.6
>> and 2.8 modulo some small OS issues in the test suite itself.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>>
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Arne Claassen <ar...@mindtouch.com>]

Robert,

I think i was even aware of that at the time, it's just that currently  
our minimum mono requirement is still 2.4, so i'd stayed with  
lucene.net 2.4 for the time being.

Ok, with that out of the way, what's the best way to get involved?  
Start digging into open issues?

Also, out of curiosity, what is the process for syncing up with the  
java lucene source for future releases? That is one aspect of a  
project like Lucene.NET that i've always found daunting and would love  
to know how its approached to make it manageable.

thanks,
Arne Claassen

MindTouch
San Diego, CA
http://twitter.com/sdether

On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:44 AM, Robert Jordan wrote:

> On 30.10.2010 17:29, Arne Claassen wrote:
>> If one of the present comitters can point me to some guidance on  
>> what is
>> the best way I can start contributing and what the apache process  
>> is. I
>> can tackle bugs and ensure lucene.net works well on mono. We're
>> currently using 2.4.2 since last time i tried 2.9.1 (back in May)  
>> it had
>> issues with mono, so i guess fixing whatever caused that problem  
>> (if it
>> still exists) would be a good introduction to contributing.
>
> The issue you were reporting  was caused by a Mono 2.4 bug.
>
> All other Mono issues were fixed back in April/May.
>
> The unit tests of the current trunk are passing under Mono 2.6
> and 2.8 modulo some small OS issues in the test suite itself.
>
> Robert
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net>]

On 30.10.2010 17:29, Arne Claassen wrote:
> If one of the present comitters can point me to some guidance on what is
> the best way I can start contributing and what the apache process is. I
> can tackle bugs and ensure lucene.net works well on mono. We're
> currently using 2.4.2 since last time i tried 2.9.1 (back in May) it had
> issues with mono, so i guess fixing whatever caused that problem (if it
> still exists) would be a good introduction to contributing.

The issue you were reporting  was caused by a Mono 2.4 bug.

All other Mono issues were fixed back in April/May.

The unit tests of the current trunk are passing under Mono 2.6
and 2.8 modulo some small OS issues in the test suite itself.

Robert

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Arne Claassen <ar...@mindtouch.com>]

Grant,

I've been a user of lucene.net for years and would find its loss a  
great setback to the community. I've spelunked through the code base a  
bit here and there to track down issues, but have not been comfortable  
enough to contribute. As a user i've been very happy with lucene.net  
to the point that I have not been monitoring its progress and had been  
unaware that the situation was this bad.

If one of the present comitters can point me to some guidance on what  
is the best way I can start contributing and what the apache process  
is. I can tackle bugs and ensure lucene.net works well on mono. We're  
currently using 2.4.2 since last time i tried 2.9.1 (back in May) it  
had issues with mono, so i guess fixing whatever caused that problem  
(if it still exists) would be a good introduction to contributing.

If we can't get the required traction going by the end of the year I'd  
much rather see Lucene.NET go back into Incubation than to see it  
fork. I feel that diverging from the lucene brand cannot do anything  
but hurt the project further

cheers,
Arne Claassen

MindTouch
San Diego, CA
http://twitter.com/sdether

On Oct 30, 2010, at 3:34 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> Thanks, Aaron.
>
> By the way, to all others reading this: please do not reply to me  
> privately.  It does nothing to help the community and in fact just  
> reinforces in my mind that the project is not sustainable at the ASF  
> because people aren't willing to publicly support it.
>
> -Grant
>
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Aaron Powell wrote:
>
>> I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be really disappointed to  
>> loose
>> Lucene.Net from the .Net communities toolbox.
>>
>> I'd be happy to offer up my services to keep the project alive.  
>> I'll admit I
>> don't know much about the way projects are run under the Apache  
>> umbrella,
>> but I'm keen to ensure that Lucene.Net doesn't die :).
>> Aaron Powell
>> Umbraco Ninja
>>
>> http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
>> aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Grant Ingersoll  
>> <gs...@apache.org>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
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Arne Claassen <ar...@mindtouch.com>]

Grant,

I've been a user of lucene.net for years and would find its loss a  
great setback to the community. I've spelunked through the code base a  
bit here and there to track down issues, but have not been comfortable  
enough to contribute. As a user i've been very happy with lucene.net  
to the point that I have not been monitoring its progress and had been  
unaware that the situation was this bad.

If one of the present comitters can point me to some guidance on what  
is the best way I can start contributing and what the apache process  
is. I can tackle bugs and ensure lucene.net works well on mono. We're  
currently using 2.4.2 since last time i tried 2.9.1 (back in May) it  
had issues with mono, so i guess fixing whatever caused that problem  
(if it still exists) would be a good introduction to contributing.

If we can't get the required traction going by the end of the year I'd  
much rather see Lucene.NET go back into Incubation than to see it  
fork. I feel that diverging from the lucene brand cannot do anything  
but hurt the project further

cheers,
Arne Claassen

MindTouch
San Diego, CA
http://twitter.com/sdether

On Oct 30, 2010, at 3:34 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> Thanks, Aaron.
>
> By the way, to all others reading this: please do not reply to me  
> privately.  It does nothing to help the community and in fact just  
> reinforces in my mind that the project is not sustainable at the ASF  
> because people aren't willing to publicly support it.
>
> -Grant
>
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Aaron Powell wrote:
>
>> I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be really disappointed to  
>> loose
>> Lucene.Net from the .Net communities toolbox.
>>
>> I'd be happy to offer up my services to keep the project alive.  
>> I'll admit I
>> don't know much about the way projects are run under the Apache  
>> umbrella,
>> but I'm keen to ensure that Lucene.Net doesn't die :).
>> Aaron Powell
>> Umbraco Ninja
>>
>> http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
>> aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Grant Ingersoll  
>> <gs...@apache.org>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
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Johannes Roith <jo...@jroith.de>]

Hello, everyone!

I'm interested in helping to keep Lucene.net alive and well; Most of
my time available for open source development is required for another
project, so can't make commitments on contributing code (like helping
with porting, etc.).

I could fix bugs now and then, and help with testing and optimizing
performance of Lucene.Net on Mono.

Also I can help with the website. It really needs some love and I
could help to provide a proper site structure, make a beautiful
design, improve the logo, better integrate API documentation into the
website, etc.

Johannes.

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks, Aaron.
>
> By the way, to all others reading this: please do not reply to me privately.  It does nothing to help the community and in fact just reinforces in my mind that the project is not sustainable at the ASF because people aren't willing to publicly support it.
>
> -Grant
>
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Aaron Powell wrote:
>
>> I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be really disappointed to loose
>> Lucene.Net from the .Net communities toolbox.
>>
>> I'd be happy to offer up my services to keep the project alive. I'll admit I
>> don't know much about the way projects are run under the Apache umbrella,
>> but I'm keen to ensure that Lucene.Net doesn't die :).
>> Aaron Powell
>> Umbraco Ninja
>>
>> http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
>> aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>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
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Arne Claassen <ar...@mindtouch.com>]

Grant,

I've been a user of lucene.net for years and would find its loss a  
great setback to the community. I've spelunked through the code base a  
bit here and there to track down issues, but have not been comfortable  
enough to contribute. As a user i've been very happy with lucene.net  
to the point that I have not been monitoring its progress and had been  
unaware that the situation was this bad.

If one of the present comitters can point me to some guidance on what  
is the best way I can start contributing and what the apache process  
is. I can tackle bugs and ensure lucene.net works well on mono. We're  
currently using 2.4.2 since last time i tried 2.9.1 (back in May) it  
had issues with mono, so i guess fixing whatever caused that problem  
(if it still exists) would be a good introduction to contributing.

If we can't get the required traction going by the end of the year I'd  
much rather see Lucene.NET go back into Incubation than to see it  
fork. I feel that diverging from the lucene brand cannot do anything  
but hurt the project further

cheers,
Arne Claassen

MindTouch
San Diego, CA
http://twitter.com/sdether

On Oct 30, 2010, at 3:34 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> Thanks, Aaron.
>
> By the way, to all others reading this: please do not reply to me  
> privately.  It does nothing to help the community and in fact just  
> reinforces in my mind that the project is not sustainable at the ASF  
> because people aren't willing to publicly support it.
>
> -Grant
>
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Aaron Powell wrote:
>
>> I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be really disappointed to  
>> loose
>> Lucene.Net from the .Net communities toolbox.
>>
>> I'd be happy to offer up my services to keep the project alive.  
>> I'll admit I
>> don't know much about the way projects are run under the Apache  
>> umbrella,
>> but I'm keen to ensure that Lucene.Net doesn't die :).
>> Aaron Powell
>> Umbraco Ninja
>>
>> http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
>> aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Grant Ingersoll  
>> <gs...@apache.org>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
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Johannes Roith <jo...@jroith.de>]

Hello, everyone!

I'm interested in helping to keep Lucene.net alive and well; Most of
my time available for open source development is required for another
project, so can't make commitments on contributing code (like helping
with porting, etc.).

I could fix bugs now and then, and help with testing and optimizing
performance of Lucene.Net on Mono.

Also I can help with the website. It really needs some love and I
could help to provide a proper site structure, make a beautiful
design, improve the logo, better integrate API documentation into the
website, etc.

Johannes.

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks, Aaron.
>
> By the way, to all others reading this: please do not reply to me privately.  It does nothing to help the community and in fact just reinforces in my mind that the project is not sustainable at the ASF because people aren't willing to publicly support it.
>
> -Grant
>
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Aaron Powell wrote:
>
>> I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be really disappointed to loose
>> Lucene.Net from the .Net communities toolbox.
>>
>> I'd be happy to offer up my services to keep the project alive. I'll admit I
>> don't know much about the way projects are run under the Apache umbrella,
>> but I'm keen to ensure that Lucene.Net doesn't die :).
>> Aaron Powell
>> Umbraco Ninja
>>
>> http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
>> aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>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
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

Thanks, Aaron.

By the way, to all others reading this: please do not reply to me privately.  It does nothing to help the community and in fact just reinforces in my mind that the project is not sustainable at the ASF because people aren't willing to publicly support it.

-Grant

On Oct 29, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Aaron Powell wrote:

> I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be really disappointed to loose
> Lucene.Net from the .Net communities toolbox.
> 
> I'd be happy to offer up my services to keep the project alive. I'll admit I
> don't know much about the way projects are run under the Apache umbrella,
> but I'm keen to ensure that Lucene.Net doesn't die :).
> Aaron Powell
> Umbraco Ninja
> 
> http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
> aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>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

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

Thanks, Aaron.

By the way, to all others reading this: please do not reply to me privately.  It does nothing to help the community and in fact just reinforces in my mind that the project is not sustainable at the ASF because people aren't willing to publicly support it.

-Grant

On Oct 29, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Aaron Powell wrote:

> I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be really disappointed to loose
> Lucene.Net from the .Net communities toolbox.
> 
> I'd be happy to offer up my services to keep the project alive. I'll admit I
> don't know much about the way projects are run under the Apache umbrella,
> but I'm keen to ensure that Lucene.Net doesn't die :).
> Aaron Powell
> Umbraco Ninja
> 
> http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
> aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>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

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

Thanks, Aaron.

By the way, to all others reading this: please do not reply to me privately.  It does nothing to help the community and in fact just reinforces in my mind that the project is not sustainable at the ASF because people aren't willing to publicly support it.

-Grant

On Oct 29, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Aaron Powell wrote:

> I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be really disappointed to loose
> Lucene.Net from the .Net communities toolbox.
> 
> I'd be happy to offer up my services to keep the project alive. I'll admit I
> don't know much about the way projects are run under the Apache umbrella,
> but I'm keen to ensure that Lucene.Net doesn't die :).
> Aaron Powell
> Umbraco Ninja
> 
> http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
> aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>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

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

Just to be clear, there is a third option in all of this besides Attic or Incubator and it is what I wrote in the original email.  Remedy the 4 items (quoted below) and then go to the Board to be a Top Level Project.  Clearly, the life in this thread shows that #1 can be met if people are willing to back up their words with action (i.e. patches and discussion, etc.) and continue to show up on a regular basis not just as users but as contributors.  That action could very quickly lead to #2 and #3.  Action by some people on #2 and #3 then leads to #4, new blood in the project.  I think with 4-6 active committers and some sustained life and a clear process for doing the port, this would be a fine TLP and the community can then sink or swim on it's own.

As I said in the original email (quoted below), you have until the end of the year.  If the community withers away at this point, Lucene.NET will go into the Attic. If it steps up, it should be a viable TLP and can control it's own destiny under the PMC of it's choosing.

At this point, I'm going to _try_ to stop responding to this thread and let you all work out what you want to do as a community.  I believe I've made it clear the actions that need to be taken to show that there is a viable community here.  I also believe those actions are not onerous (some of them could have been fixed in the time it takes to read all the threads on this email) as I outlined above.

I will rely on George, as the PMC representative for this project, to report back to the PMC on the actions taken by the community to remedy the items below or to state that the community wishes to go either to the Incubator (a vote might be worthwhile here) or to the Attic and fork somewhere else under a different name.  If there is no report back by that time (call it January 1, 2011) or no positive action to move the project forward in a healthy and sustainable way, then I will call a PMC vote to move Lucene.NET into the Apache Attic and then take the necessary steps to do so (and this is not something I want to do.)  

-Grant


>> 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.
> 

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Aaron Powell <me...@aaron-powell.com>]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be really disappointed to loose
Lucene.Net from the .Net communities toolbox.

I'd be happy to offer up my services to keep the project alive. I'll admit I
don't know much about the way projects are run under the Apache umbrella,
but I'm keen to ensure that Lucene.Net doesn't die :).
Aaron Powell
Umbraco Ninja

http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com


On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>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

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net>]

On 03.11.2010 11:40, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
> Doesn't look a really friendly approach.... if the ASF provides just the
> brand (which is big in the Linux/Java world, but almost nil in the .NET
> one), the infrastructure (I don't know what this is, but if it is just the
> hosting and the svn and ML, then all the opensource project hosting site
> provide it with no strings attached), and a set of rules/obligations/laws
> that cannot be even summed up in an email, then I don't think its really a
> lot of advantages for the project.

Infrastructure is a rather less important service of ASF. No doubt there
are much better hosting services out there.

ASF is able to provide legal protection. If Lucene should ever be
threatened by patent/copyright/etc. actions, you surely can count
on ASF.

Robert

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Simone Chiaretta
<si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> that cannot be even summed up in an email, then I don't think its really a
> lot of advantages for the project.
>
> Except for the name, personally I don't see any other reason for really
> wanting to stay inside the ASF.
>

Going somewhere else isn't gonna fix your problem, because Apache
isn't the cause.
Lucene.NET development is completely dead: if it was at
codeplex/google code/sourceforge it would just continue to rot, rather
than someone trying to do something about it.

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>]

I don't want to sound negative but saying:

>
> Beyond that, the ASF provides legal protection for committers, plus an
> incredible brand, not to mention infrastructure, etc.  *Rather than write
> it up, I'd suggest you go read
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html and
> http://www.apache.org/dev/ and other things.*
>
>
Doesn't look a really friendly approach.... if the ASF provides just the
brand (which is big in the Linux/Java world, but almost nil in the .NET
one), the infrastructure (I don't know what this is, but if it is just the
hosting and the svn and ML, then all the opensource project hosting site
provide it with no strings attached), and a set of rules/obligations/laws
that cannot be even summed up in an email, then I don't think its really a
lot of advantages for the project.

Except for the name, personally I don't see any other reason for really
wanting to stay inside the ASF.

Or maybe it's the ASF that wants Lucene.Net in to expand their brand also to
the .NET world

Anyway, whichever direction the current "committers" decide to take, I'm
available for help, as long as I can find the time to it, considering that I
use only in my personal opensource project.

Probably it would be more beneficial if someone that is working for
companies that get money from products based on Lucene.Net could ask their
company if they can devote part of their paid time on it (
http://blog.wekeroad.com/thoughts/making-bacon-from-lemonade)

Simone

-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>]

I don't want to sound negative but saying:

>
> Beyond that, the ASF provides legal protection for committers, plus an
> incredible brand, not to mention infrastructure, etc.  *Rather than write
> it up, I'd suggest you go read
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html and
> http://www.apache.org/dev/ and other things.*
>
>
Doesn't look a really friendly approach.... if the ASF provides just the
brand (which is big in the Linux/Java world, but almost nil in the .NET
one), the infrastructure (I don't know what this is, but if it is just the
hosting and the svn and ML, then all the opensource project hosting site
provide it with no strings attached), and a set of rules/obligations/laws
that cannot be even summed up in an email, then I don't think its really a
lot of advantages for the project.

Except for the name, personally I don't see any other reason for really
wanting to stay inside the ASF.

Or maybe it's the ASF that wants Lucene.Net in to expand their brand also to
the .NET world

Anyway, whichever direction the current "committers" decide to take, I'm
available for help, as long as I can find the time to it, considering that I
use only in my personal opensource project.

Probably it would be more beneficial if someone that is working for
companies that get money from products based on Lucene.Net could ask their
company if they can devote part of their paid time on it (
http://blog.wekeroad.com/thoughts/making-bacon-from-lemonade)

Simone

-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Nov 2, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Josh Handel wrote:

> One thing that has yet to be answered on this list is this :
> 
> What does Apache Foundation provide, that the project does not received on its own OTHER than the name "Lucene"..     I hear a lot of what Apache requests of us, beyond a name what the heck do they provide?   

I'd hardly say we've made many requests other than to say the community needs to show some sign of life (which it hasn't) and to not call something a release when it isn't.  Go read the original email

Beyond that, the ASF provides legal protection for committers, plus an incredible brand, not to mention infrastructure, etc.  Rather than write it up, I'd suggest you go read http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html and http://www.apache.org/dev/ and other things.

And yes, the name itself is quite significant.  Go do some searches.  There are lots of other search engine implementations out there.  Some are even good.  None have the usage and innovation that Lucene does.  I feel quite comfortable in saying it is the most widely used search library on the planet.  So, yeah, the name alone is worth quite a bit.  Why do you think Lucene.NET was called that in the first place?

-Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Nov 2, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Josh Handel wrote:

> One thing that has yet to be answered on this list is this :
> 
> What does Apache Foundation provide, that the project does not received on its own OTHER than the name "Lucene"..     I hear a lot of what Apache requests of us, beyond a name what the heck do they provide?   

I'd hardly say we've made many requests other than to say the community needs to show some sign of life (which it hasn't) and to not call something a release when it isn't.  Go read the original email

Beyond that, the ASF provides legal protection for committers, plus an incredible brand, not to mention infrastructure, etc.  Rather than write it up, I'd suggest you go read http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html and http://www.apache.org/dev/ and other things.

And yes, the name itself is quite significant.  Go do some searches.  There are lots of other search engine implementations out there.  Some are even good.  None have the usage and innovation that Lucene does.  I feel quite comfortable in saying it is the most widely used search library on the planet.  So, yeah, the name alone is worth quite a bit.  Why do you think Lucene.NET was called that in the first place?

-Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Nov 2, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Josh Handel wrote:

> One thing that has yet to be answered on this list is this :
> 
> What does Apache Foundation provide, that the project does not received on its own OTHER than the name "Lucene"..     I hear a lot of what Apache requests of us, beyond a name what the heck do they provide?   

I'd hardly say we've made many requests other than to say the community needs to show some sign of life (which it hasn't) and to not call something a release when it isn't.  Go read the original email

Beyond that, the ASF provides legal protection for committers, plus an incredible brand, not to mention infrastructure, etc.  Rather than write it up, I'd suggest you go read http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html and http://www.apache.org/dev/ and other things.

And yes, the name itself is quite significant.  Go do some searches.  There are lots of other search engine implementations out there.  Some are even good.  None have the usage and innovation that Lucene does.  I feel quite comfortable in saying it is the most widely used search library on the planet.  So, yeah, the name alone is worth quite a bit.  Why do you think Lucene.NET was called that in the first place?

-Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Moray McConnachie <mm...@oxford-analytica.com>]

I'm a long-time user who doesn't feel comfortable enough with the source 
to do more  than troubleshoot the bugs that I very occasionally find 
following a new release (which DIGY has in the past always been 
splendidly fast to fix - thanks DIGY).

Therefore I would be delighted to assuage my guilt at not being able to 
help more practically by contributing something financially towards 
software that would help the committers with the conversion process.

Feel free to come back to me privately when you identify what the best 
software is if it is not open source.

I'm going to bet lots of lurkers on this list feel likewise.

Yours,
Moray

---------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer 

This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.

Oxford Analytica Ltd
Registered in England: No. 1196703
5 Alfred Street, Oxford
United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
---------------------------------------------------------

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Moray McConnachie <mm...@oxford-analytica.com>]

I'm a long-time user who doesn't feel comfortable enough with the source 
to do more  than troubleshoot the bugs that I very occasionally find 
following a new release (which DIGY has in the past always been 
splendidly fast to fix - thanks DIGY).

Therefore I would be delighted to assuage my guilt at not being able to 
help more practically by contributing something financially towards 
software that would help the committers with the conversion process.

Feel free to come back to me privately when you identify what the best 
software is if it is not open source.

I'm going to bet lots of lurkers on this list feel likewise.

Yours,
Moray

---------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer 

This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.

Oxford Analytica Ltd
Registered in England: No. 1196703
5 Alfred Street, Oxford
United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
---------------------------------------------------------

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Phil Haack <ph...@microsoft.com>]

Not that my opinion holds much weight as I've never contributed much to Lucene.NET in the past (other than promotion), but I think Ben is right. Although I do think moving to a more .NET "friendly" environment would garner more .NET developer attention, I'm not sure that would actually matter. Given what I've learned from this discussion, the expertise to carry on this project as-is just doesn't exist in the .NET community at the moment.

As an aside to the Apache Foundation, I think it'd be a shame not to take this as a moment to reflect on what would make the Apache Foundation more inviting to .NET developers. Obviously the Java community has a richer larger OSS heritage, but there's a very active and growing OSS community in the .NET space and we have a lot to learn from the Apache organization. But I think some learning can go both ways.

Now back to the point at hand. It seems to me that there are two key things that need to happen soon:

1. Clean up the documentation and project web page.
2. Find the best Java to C# automated tool (whether it's OSS or not).

I need to read through the Apache Foundation docs to understand how you even go about editing the project page. I'd like to help out there if I can. As for #2, once the tool has been identified, if it requires funding, I think we could look at tackling that together. Would the foundation fund such a thing? If not, we can go looking around for funding from all the many companies that benefit from Lucene.NET.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Martz [mailto:benmartz@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:44 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

If nothing else they (ASF) provide a swift kick in our collective behinds when it's needed. And it's needed rather badly right now.

The last release of Lucene.Net was 2.9.2 in May. Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1 were released in February and 2.9.3 and 3.0.2 were released in June. It's now November and as a community we have no clue what our current project status is.

With all due respect to the couple of very dedicated people who actively contribute, Lucene.Net is a mess from a project management standpoint. The port from Lucene Java is a mysterious black-box process which takes place "eventually" because one person generously spends a huge amount of time on it in their spare time, outside of their real job that actually pays the bills.

The gating factor for this project is the initial port by one poor soul and then fixes to various subtle issues caused by the automated conversion.

On the subject of forking outside of ASF, one big issue is that Lucene.Net would not exist without the fundamental work done by the gurus involved in the Lucene Java project. I can port another developer's code all day but I sure don't have the domain knowledge (or the interest) to get into the guts of Lucene and actually make meaningful improvements there.

I think this recent discussion of automated porting tools is a great start towards breathing some life back into this project. I'm hoping to play with a couple of the tools mentioned when time permits so I can contribute to that discussion. Hopefully if enough people are interested then we can build on that and segment out portions of the work so that even with some overlap we are no longer gated by the availability of a single developer.

The short term issue though is whether or not enough people are interested in continuing this project under the umbrella of ASF and if so then, as I understand it, there are certain basic procedures that need to be followed so that ASF doesn't drop this technically inactive project.

Cheers,
Ben

Josh Handel wrote:
> I should clarify here.. because this could sound hostal to the Apache Foundation..
>
> I'm not for or against saying as an Apache Project.. But the Goals of being an Open Source port of Lucene (line for line or otherwise) can be done inside or outside the Apache Foundation....  Ergo, rather than assume that going back to Incubation with the hope of becoming a TLP inside the Apache Foundation is what is best for this project, I think we should evaluate what Apache offers..
>
> If they provide compelling resources and support that is worth more than the Political headache and overhead, then I say we stay. However, if we are all in a tizzy to not lose our status and all they provide is source control, a mail list, and the name "Lucene" then I think we should be discussing if that is worth the overhead they impose.
>
> Josh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Handel [mailto:Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:02 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> One thing that has yet to be answered on this list is this :
>
> What does Apache Foundation provide, that the project does not received on its own OTHER than the name "Lucene"..     I hear a lot of what Apache requests of us, beyond a name what the heck do they provide?
>
> Josh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:59 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:
>
>> We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?
>
> Because clearly it didn't take the first time and this time the goal is to demonstrate the community can stand on its own two feet as an Apache Top Level Project (TLP).  Last time through, the goal was to be a part of the Lucene PMC.
>
> Given the declared interest level here, if it is indeed real, it shouldn't be a problem to go back to the incubator with  some extra helping hands, do some real releases, learn how Apache works and then graduate to be a TLP.
>
> -Grant
>

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Phil Haack <ph...@microsoft.com>]

Not that my opinion holds much weight as I've never contributed much to Lucene.NET in the past (other than promotion), but I think Ben is right. Although I do think moving to a more .NET "friendly" environment would garner more .NET developer attention, I'm not sure that would actually matter. Given what I've learned from this discussion, the expertise to carry on this project as-is just doesn't exist in the .NET community at the moment.

As an aside to the Apache Foundation, I think it'd be a shame not to take this as a moment to reflect on what would make the Apache Foundation more inviting to .NET developers. Obviously the Java community has a richer larger OSS heritage, but there's a very active and growing OSS community in the .NET space and we have a lot to learn from the Apache organization. But I think some learning can go both ways.

Now back to the point at hand. It seems to me that there are two key things that need to happen soon:

1. Clean up the documentation and project web page.
2. Find the best Java to C# automated tool (whether it's OSS or not).

I need to read through the Apache Foundation docs to understand how you even go about editing the project page. I'd like to help out there if I can. As for #2, once the tool has been identified, if it requires funding, I think we could look at tackling that together. Would the foundation fund such a thing? If not, we can go looking around for funding from all the many companies that benefit from Lucene.NET.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Martz [mailto:benmartz@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:44 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

If nothing else they (ASF) provide a swift kick in our collective behinds when it's needed. And it's needed rather badly right now.

The last release of Lucene.Net was 2.9.2 in May. Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1 were released in February and 2.9.3 and 3.0.2 were released in June. It's now November and as a community we have no clue what our current project status is.

With all due respect to the couple of very dedicated people who actively contribute, Lucene.Net is a mess from a project management standpoint. The port from Lucene Java is a mysterious black-box process which takes place "eventually" because one person generously spends a huge amount of time on it in their spare time, outside of their real job that actually pays the bills.

The gating factor for this project is the initial port by one poor soul and then fixes to various subtle issues caused by the automated conversion.

On the subject of forking outside of ASF, one big issue is that Lucene.Net would not exist without the fundamental work done by the gurus involved in the Lucene Java project. I can port another developer's code all day but I sure don't have the domain knowledge (or the interest) to get into the guts of Lucene and actually make meaningful improvements there.

I think this recent discussion of automated porting tools is a great start towards breathing some life back into this project. I'm hoping to play with a couple of the tools mentioned when time permits so I can contribute to that discussion. Hopefully if enough people are interested then we can build on that and segment out portions of the work so that even with some overlap we are no longer gated by the availability of a single developer.

The short term issue though is whether or not enough people are interested in continuing this project under the umbrella of ASF and if so then, as I understand it, there are certain basic procedures that need to be followed so that ASF doesn't drop this technically inactive project.

Cheers,
Ben

Josh Handel wrote:
> I should clarify here.. because this could sound hostal to the Apache Foundation..
>
> I'm not for or against saying as an Apache Project.. But the Goals of being an Open Source port of Lucene (line for line or otherwise) can be done inside or outside the Apache Foundation....  Ergo, rather than assume that going back to Incubation with the hope of becoming a TLP inside the Apache Foundation is what is best for this project, I think we should evaluate what Apache offers..
>
> If they provide compelling resources and support that is worth more than the Political headache and overhead, then I say we stay. However, if we are all in a tizzy to not lose our status and all they provide is source control, a mail list, and the name "Lucene" then I think we should be discussing if that is worth the overhead they impose.
>
> Josh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Handel [mailto:Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:02 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> One thing that has yet to be answered on this list is this :
>
> What does Apache Foundation provide, that the project does not received on its own OTHER than the name "Lucene"..     I hear a lot of what Apache requests of us, beyond a name what the heck do they provide?
>
> Josh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:59 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:
>
>> We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?
>
> Because clearly it didn't take the first time and this time the goal is to demonstrate the community can stand on its own two feet as an Apache Top Level Project (TLP).  Last time through, the goal was to be a part of the Lucene PMC.
>
> Given the declared interest level here, if it is indeed real, it shouldn't be a problem to go back to the incubator with  some extra helping hands, do some real releases, learn how Apache works and then graduate to be a TLP.
>
> -Grant
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Ben Martz <be...@gmail.com>]

If nothing else they (ASF) provide a swift kick in our collective behinds when it's needed. And it's needed rather badly right now.

The last release of Lucene.Net was 2.9.2 in May. Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1 were released in February and 2.9.3 and 3.0.2 were released in June. It's now November and as a community we have no clue what our current project status is.

With all due respect to the couple of very dedicated people who actively contribute, Lucene.Net is a mess from a project management standpoint. The port from Lucene Java is a mysterious black-box process which takes place "eventually" because one person generously spends a huge amount of time on it in their spare time, outside of their real job that actually pays the bills.

The gating factor for this project is the initial port by one poor soul and then fixes to various subtle issues caused by the automated conversion.

On the subject of forking outside of ASF, one big issue is that Lucene.Net would not exist without the fundamental work done by the gurus involved in the Lucene Java project. I can port another developer's code all day but I sure don't have the domain knowledge (or the interest) to get into the guts of Lucene and actually make meaningful improvements there.

I think this recent discussion of automated porting tools is a great start towards breathing some life back into this project. I'm hoping to play with a couple of the tools mentioned when time permits so I can contribute to that discussion. Hopefully if enough people are interested then we can build on that and segment out portions of the work so that even with some overlap we are no longer gated by the availability of a single developer.

The short term issue though is whether or not enough people are interested in continuing this project under the umbrella of ASF and if so then, as I understand it, there are certain basic procedures that need to be followed so that ASF doesn't drop this technically inactive project.

Cheers,
Ben

Josh Handel wrote:
> I should clarify here.. because this could sound hostal to the Apache Foundation..
>
> I'm not for or against saying as an Apache Project.. But the Goals of being an Open Source port of Lucene (line for line or otherwise) can be done inside or outside the Apache Foundation....  Ergo, rather than assume that going back to Incubation with the hope of becoming a TLP inside the Apache Foundation is what is best for this project, I think we should evaluate what Apache offers..
>
> If they provide compelling resources and support that is worth more than the Political headache and overhead, then I say we stay. However, if we are all in a tizzy to not lose our status and all they provide is source control, a mail list, and the name "Lucene" then I think we should be discussing if that is worth the overhead they impose.
>
> Josh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Handel [mailto:Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:02 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> One thing that has yet to be answered on this list is this :
>
> What does Apache Foundation provide, that the project does not received on its own OTHER than the name "Lucene"..     I hear a lot of what Apache requests of us, beyond a name what the heck do they provide?
>
> Josh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:59 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:
>
>> We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?
>
> Because clearly it didn't take the first time and this time the goal is to demonstrate the community can stand on its own two feet as an Apache Top Level Project (TLP).  Last time through, the goal was to be a part of the Lucene PMC.
>
> Given the declared interest level here, if it is indeed real, it shouldn't be a problem to go back to the incubator with  some extra helping hands, do some real releases, learn how Apache works and then graduate to be a TLP.
>
> -Grant
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Ben Martz <be...@gmail.com>]

If nothing else they (ASF) provide a swift kick in our collective behinds when it's needed. And it's needed rather badly right now.

The last release of Lucene.Net was 2.9.2 in May. Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1 were released in February and 2.9.3 and 3.0.2 were released in June. It's now November and as a community we have no clue what our current project status is.

With all due respect to the couple of very dedicated people who actively contribute, Lucene.Net is a mess from a project management standpoint. The port from Lucene Java is a mysterious black-box process which takes place "eventually" because one person generously spends a huge amount of time on it in their spare time, outside of their real job that actually pays the bills.

The gating factor for this project is the initial port by one poor soul and then fixes to various subtle issues caused by the automated conversion.

On the subject of forking outside of ASF, one big issue is that Lucene.Net would not exist without the fundamental work done by the gurus involved in the Lucene Java project. I can port another developer's code all day but I sure don't have the domain knowledge (or the interest) to get into the guts of Lucene and actually make meaningful improvements there.

I think this recent discussion of automated porting tools is a great start towards breathing some life back into this project. I'm hoping to play with a couple of the tools mentioned when time permits so I can contribute to that discussion. Hopefully if enough people are interested then we can build on that and segment out portions of the work so that even with some overlap we are no longer gated by the availability of a single developer.

The short term issue though is whether or not enough people are interested in continuing this project under the umbrella of ASF and if so then, as I understand it, there are certain basic procedures that need to be followed so that ASF doesn't drop this technically inactive project.

Cheers,
Ben

Josh Handel wrote:
> I should clarify here.. because this could sound hostal to the Apache Foundation..
>
> I'm not for or against saying as an Apache Project.. But the Goals of being an Open Source port of Lucene (line for line or otherwise) can be done inside or outside the Apache Foundation....  Ergo, rather than assume that going back to Incubation with the hope of becoming a TLP inside the Apache Foundation is what is best for this project, I think we should evaluate what Apache offers..
>
> If they provide compelling resources and support that is worth more than the Political headache and overhead, then I say we stay. However, if we are all in a tizzy to not lose our status and all they provide is source control, a mail list, and the name "Lucene" then I think we should be discussing if that is worth the overhead they impose.
>
> Josh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Handel [mailto:Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:02 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> One thing that has yet to be answered on this list is this :
>
> What does Apache Foundation provide, that the project does not received on its own OTHER than the name "Lucene"..     I hear a lot of what Apache requests of us, beyond a name what the heck do they provide?
>
> Josh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:59 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:
>
>> We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?
>
> Because clearly it didn't take the first time and this time the goal is to demonstrate the community can stand on its own two feet as an Apache Top Level Project (TLP).  Last time through, the goal was to be a part of the Lucene PMC.
>
> Given the declared interest level here, if it is indeed real, it shouldn't be a problem to go back to the incubator with  some extra helping hands, do some real releases, learn how Apache works and then graduate to be a TLP.
>
> -Grant
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Ben Martz <be...@gmail.com>]

If nothing else they (ASF) provide a swift kick in our collective behinds when it's needed. And it's needed rather badly right now.

The last release of Lucene.Net was 2.9.2 in May. Lucene Java 2.9.2 and 3.0.1 were released in February and 2.9.3 and 3.0.2 were released in June. It's now November and as a community we have no clue what our current project status is.

With all due respect to the couple of very dedicated people who actively contribute, Lucene.Net is a mess from a project management standpoint. The port from Lucene Java is a mysterious black-box process which takes place "eventually" because one person generously spends a huge amount of time on it in their spare time, outside of their real job that actually pays the bills.

The gating factor for this project is the initial port by one poor soul and then fixes to various subtle issues caused by the automated conversion.

On the subject of forking outside of ASF, one big issue is that Lucene.Net would not exist without the fundamental work done by the gurus involved in the Lucene Java project. I can port another developer's code all day but I sure don't have the domain knowledge (or the interest) to get into the guts of Lucene and actually make meaningful improvements there.

I think this recent discussion of automated porting tools is a great start towards breathing some life back into this project. I'm hoping to play with a couple of the tools mentioned when time permits so I can contribute to that discussion. Hopefully if enough people are interested then we can build on that and segment out portions of the work so that even with some overlap we are no longer gated by the availability of a single developer.

The short term issue though is whether or not enough people are interested in continuing this project under the umbrella of ASF and if so then, as I understand it, there are certain basic procedures that need to be followed so that ASF doesn't drop this technically inactive project.

Cheers,
Ben

Josh Handel wrote:
> I should clarify here.. because this could sound hostal to the Apache Foundation..
>
> I'm not for or against saying as an Apache Project.. But the Goals of being an Open Source port of Lucene (line for line or otherwise) can be done inside or outside the Apache Foundation....  Ergo, rather than assume that going back to Incubation with the hope of becoming a TLP inside the Apache Foundation is what is best for this project, I think we should evaluate what Apache offers..
>
> If they provide compelling resources and support that is worth more than the Political headache and overhead, then I say we stay. However, if we are all in a tizzy to not lose our status and all they provide is source control, a mail list, and the name "Lucene" then I think we should be discussing if that is worth the overhead they impose.
>
> Josh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Handel [mailto:Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:02 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> One thing that has yet to be answered on this list is this :
>
> What does Apache Foundation provide, that the project does not received on its own OTHER than the name "Lucene"..     I hear a lot of what Apache requests of us, beyond a name what the heck do they provide?
>
> Josh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:59 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:
>
>> We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?
>
> Because clearly it didn't take the first time and this time the goal is to demonstrate the community can stand on its own two feet as an Apache Top Level Project (TLP).  Last time through, the goal was to be a part of the Lucene PMC.
>
> Given the declared interest level here, if it is indeed real, it shouldn't be a problem to go back to the incubator with  some extra helping hands, do some real releases, learn how Apache works and then graduate to be a TLP.
>
> -Grant
>

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Josh Handel <Jo...@catapultsystems.com>]

I should clarify here.. because this could sound hostal to the Apache Foundation..

I'm not for or against saying as an Apache Project.. But the Goals of being an Open Source port of Lucene (line for line or otherwise) can be done inside or outside the Apache Foundation....  Ergo, rather than assume that going back to Incubation with the hope of becoming a TLP inside the Apache Foundation is what is best for this project, I think we should evaluate what Apache offers..

If they provide compelling resources and support that is worth more than the Political headache and overhead, then I say we stay. However, if we are all in a tizzy to not lose our status and all they provide is source control, a mail list, and the name "Lucene" then I think we should be discussing if that is worth the overhead they impose.

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Handel [mailto:Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:02 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

One thing that has yet to be answered on this list is this :

What does Apache Foundation provide, that the project does not received on its own OTHER than the name "Lucene"..     I hear a lot of what Apache requests of us, beyond a name what the heck do they provide?   

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:59 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:

> 
> We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?

Because clearly it didn't take the first time and this time the goal is to demonstrate the community can stand on its own two feet as an Apache Top Level Project (TLP).  Last time through, the goal was to be a part of the Lucene PMC.

Given the declared interest level here, if it is indeed real, it shouldn't be a problem to go back to the incubator with  some extra helping hands, do some real releases, learn how Apache works and then graduate to be a TLP.

-Grant

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Josh Handel <Jo...@catapultsystems.com>]

I should clarify here.. because this could sound hostal to the Apache Foundation..

I'm not for or against saying as an Apache Project.. But the Goals of being an Open Source port of Lucene (line for line or otherwise) can be done inside or outside the Apache Foundation....  Ergo, rather than assume that going back to Incubation with the hope of becoming a TLP inside the Apache Foundation is what is best for this project, I think we should evaluate what Apache offers..

If they provide compelling resources and support that is worth more than the Political headache and overhead, then I say we stay. However, if we are all in a tizzy to not lose our status and all they provide is source control, a mail list, and the name "Lucene" then I think we should be discussing if that is worth the overhead they impose.

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Handel [mailto:Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 1:02 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

One thing that has yet to be answered on this list is this :

What does Apache Foundation provide, that the project does not received on its own OTHER than the name "Lucene"..     I hear a lot of what Apache requests of us, beyond a name what the heck do they provide?   

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:59 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:

> 
> We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?

Because clearly it didn't take the first time and this time the goal is to demonstrate the community can stand on its own two feet as an Apache Top Level Project (TLP).  Last time through, the goal was to be a part of the Lucene PMC.

Given the declared interest level here, if it is indeed real, it shouldn't be a problem to go back to the incubator with  some extra helping hands, do some real releases, learn how Apache works and then graduate to be a TLP.

-Grant

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Josh Handel <Jo...@catapultsystems.com>]

One thing that has yet to be answered on this list is this :

What does Apache Foundation provide, that the project does not received on its own OTHER than the name "Lucene"..     I hear a lot of what Apache requests of us, beyond a name what the heck do they provide?   

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:59 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:

> 
> We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?

Because clearly it didn't take the first time and this time the goal is to demonstrate the community can stand on its own two feet as an Apache Top Level Project (TLP).  Last time through, the goal was to be a part of the Lucene PMC.

Given the declared interest level here, if it is indeed real, it shouldn't be a problem to go back to the incubator with  some extra helping hands, do some real releases, learn how Apache works and then graduate to be a TLP.

-Grant

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Josh Handel <Jo...@catapultsystems.com>]

One thing that has yet to be answered on this list is this :

What does Apache Foundation provide, that the project does not received on its own OTHER than the name "Lucene"..     I hear a lot of what Apache requests of us, beyond a name what the heck do they provide?   

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:59 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:

> 
> We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?

Because clearly it didn't take the first time and this time the goal is to demonstrate the community can stand on its own two feet as an Apache Top Level Project (TLP).  Last time through, the goal was to be a part of the Lucene PMC.

Given the declared interest level here, if it is indeed real, it shouldn't be a problem to go back to the incubator with  some extra helping hands, do some real releases, learn how Apache works and then graduate to be a TLP.

-Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:

>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:
>
> >
> > We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?
>
> Because clearly it didn't take the first time and this time the goal is to
> demonstrate the community can stand on its own two feet as an Apache Top
> Level Project (TLP).  Last time through, the goal was to be a part of the
> Lucene PMC.
>
> Given the declared interest level here, if it is indeed real, it shouldn't
> be a problem to go back to the incubator with  some extra helping hands, do
> some real releases, learn how Apache works and then graduate to be a TLP.
>
> -Grant


Yes, here people showed some level of commitment.
I'd love the help, but unfortunately don't have time to do bring a lot of
value.

But I think the steps to be taken are:

1 - Install some software that help maintaining the site (forrest as all the
other apache project? a .net software like screwturn wiki?) Or can it just
be hosted on Google Code/CodePlex/Github and just linked from the Apache
site?
2 - Clean the site up a bit, add links to documentation and releases and the
usual stuff you need to have in a project site
3 - Do an official release of 2.9.2
4 - Setup a public CI environment (I think CodeBetter TeamCity would be a
great place to put it)
5 - Decide the future strategy of the project: just line-by-line port with
Java API, line-by-line port with .NET wrapper for "nicer" API, or anything
else.
6 - Add some explanation how the project is developed: if a Java to C# port
is done, explain how and how to contribute
6 - Target the latest Lucene Java available version

Simone

-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> wrote:

>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:
>
> >
> > We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?
>
> Because clearly it didn't take the first time and this time the goal is to
> demonstrate the community can stand on its own two feet as an Apache Top
> Level Project (TLP).  Last time through, the goal was to be a part of the
> Lucene PMC.
>
> Given the declared interest level here, if it is indeed real, it shouldn't
> be a problem to go back to the incubator with  some extra helping hands, do
> some real releases, learn how Apache works and then graduate to be a TLP.
>
> -Grant


Yes, here people showed some level of commitment.
I'd love the help, but unfortunately don't have time to do bring a lot of
value.

But I think the steps to be taken are:

1 - Install some software that help maintaining the site (forrest as all the
other apache project? a .net software like screwturn wiki?) Or can it just
be hosted on Google Code/CodePlex/Github and just linked from the Apache
site?
2 - Clean the site up a bit, add links to documentation and releases and the
usual stuff you need to have in a project site
3 - Do an official release of 2.9.2
4 - Setup a public CI environment (I think CodeBetter TeamCity would be a
great place to put it)
5 - Decide the future strategy of the project: just line-by-line port with
Java API, line-by-line port with .NET wrapper for "nicer" API, or anything
else.
6 - Add some explanation how the project is developed: if a Java to C# port
is done, explain how and how to contribute
6 - Target the latest Lucene Java available version

Simone

-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:

> 
> We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?

Because clearly it didn't take the first time and this time the goal is to demonstrate the community can stand on its own two feet as an Apache Top Level Project (TLP).  Last time through, the goal was to be a part of the Lucene PMC.

Given the declared interest level here, if it is indeed real, it shouldn't be a problem to go back to the incubator with  some extra helping hands, do some real releases, learn how Apache works and then graduate to be a TLP.

-Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:

> 
> We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?

Because clearly it didn't take the first time and this time the goal is to demonstrate the community can stand on its own two feet as an Apache Top Level Project (TLP).  Last time through, the goal was to be a part of the Lucene PMC.

Given the declared interest level here, if it is indeed real, it shouldn't be a problem to go back to the incubator with  some extra helping hands, do some real releases, learn how Apache works and then graduate to be a TLP.

-Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:

> 
> We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?

Because clearly it didn't take the first time and this time the goal is to demonstrate the community can stand on its own two feet as an Apache Top Level Project (TLP).  Last time through, the goal was to be a part of the Lucene PMC.

Given the declared interest level here, if it is indeed real, it shouldn't be a problem to go back to the incubator with  some extra helping hands, do some real releases, learn how Apache works and then graduate to be a TLP.

-Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Arne Claassen <ar...@mindtouch.com>]

Forking and going somewhere else certainly has the "grass is greener"  
gleam to it.

The association with the much larger java Lucene community and the  
expertise that community has (since the .NET community seems to be  
mostly consumers of the tech, given the various comments about the  
complexity of the code base), is a big boost for Lucene.NET. That's  
both the name recognition and easy transfer of knowledge from one to  
the other.

That said, the ASF is not a foundation that is a natural home for .NET  
developers, which means that a lot of possible contributors are less  
likely to see it as a project they feel qualified to contribute.

Aside the name issue, I think what makes NHibernate successful is that  
it is maintained by a bunch of people who have deep involvement in the  
problem being solved. This allows them to be a divergent fork. I don't  
think Lucene.NET could pull that off. Unless Lucene.NET can attract  
people who understand the inner workings of Lucene, staying at the ASF  
with line-by-line porting is in the best interest of the health of the  
project.

Arne Claassen

MindTouch
San Diego, CA
http://twitter.com/sdether

On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:20 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:
>
>> Huh?  What I should have been clear and concise to anyone who has  
>> follow the project for the past several years.
>>
>> Lucene.Net has already been through the official process of being  
>> promoted out of incubator status.  Why is it necessary to repeat  
>> this process?
>> The PMC failed to respond to the list when problems with updating  
>> the web site were discussed.  So updating the web site is  
>> insufficient.
>> There were also a number of issues with renaming the project to  
>> remove "incubator" from the mailing lists and web site reverences.
>> We should not repeat or reverse this unless absolutely necessary.
>> A brief pause in development and list discussions should not cause  
>> the PMC such worries about the vitality of the project.
>
> You could write up a Board proposal to go straight to TLP status.   
> I'd have a hard time recommending to the Board that they pass it but  
> maybe they would  b/c as I outlined in my original email, this  
> project isn't up to ASF community standards and not only that you  
> basically only have one current person who is an active committer/ 
> PMC member.  As I also outlined in earlier emails, the current  
> Lucene PMC is not the appropriate place for Lucene.NET b/c the  
> members of the PMC are not interested in .NET.  George is the only  
> one and he has been gone for the past few months (if not more).   
> That isn't to pick on George, it's to point out that a project has  
> to be more than just one committer to be a part of the ASF,  
> especially one that has been around this long.  So, in order  for  
> this project to get more committers, people need to step up and  
> contribute.  Therein lies the conundrum.  The current PMC is not  
> equipped to judge those contributions since none of us use .NET.   
> Hence, going back to incubation gets you a new set of committers and  
> it gets you your own PMC where you can set the criteria for  
> committership (within ASF guidelines) and where the PMC is made up  
> of the stakeholders in the project.  Being a part of a project is  
> about more than just the name, it's about the community of people  
> who use and contribute to that project.  The .NET community is  
> distinct from the Lucene Java community, despite it being a port,  
> therefore they should be separate.
>
> See http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
>
> As to those questions about forking somewhere else, that is  
> certainly something that can be done under a different name.   
> Lucene.NET is owned by the ASF.  You can take the code and go call  
> it something else, no problem.
>
> As to what the ASF brings, that's up to the community to decide.   
> The number one thing I think is our "community over code" approach.   
> Anyone can throw code up on Github/Google Code, etc. and call it  
> open source.  If you are lucky, you might attract a following.  If  
> the person who started that project is nice, they might even allow  
> other committers.  At the end of the day, however, I think the ASF's  
> meritocracy is why I choose to put my open source efforts into the  
> ASF.  It is just one way, not _the_ way.  Having started other  
> projects here at the ASF (Mahout), I can tell you the ASF is one of  
> the few orgs. out there that can attract large bases of users/ 
> contributors almost instantaneously.  In other words, the ASF has  
> brand recognition like few other places.  Again, this is just my  
> view.  I'm not going to force it on you, but you are already here,  
> so it seems like it's less friction to go back to the incubator and  
> graduate to TLP than to fork and try to get people to go find you  
> under a different name.
>
> My two cents,
> Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>]

On 2/11/2010 10:04 PM, Josh Handel wrote:

> The vibe I am getting from this discussion is seems to be the following.. (this is just a summary of the directions this conversation seems to me to be going).
>
> 1) A conceptual port of Lucene is probably not a good idea because search is such a complex and difficult task.
> 2) Line by Line port works (as it has in the past) but is VERY time consuming... If we can find automation tools and a way to parallelize the process that would go a long way to helping this project survive.
> 3) We have LOTS of consumers of the tool, but limited (1) real committer, that's because the line by line port isn't fun, exciting, and grueling.
> ....
> 7) There is an overwhelming desire to have .NETaffied API, perhaps as a wrapper, or as a core deliverable.
> 8) There are a handful of automated tools to help with java to c# porting, but we need to test them (and a fair bit of trepidation about if they will provide value to the process)

I've been following this discussion, and couldn't resist the urge to 
suggest the following, which would tackle all the points listed above 
with one stone.

There exists a cross-platform C++ port of Lucene, called CLucene 
(http://clucene.sourceforge.net). If Lucene.Net would like to change 
course and wrap CLucene with a .NET-ish API instead of maintaining a 
line-by-line port, that could benefit both projects. CLucene needs some 
attention to get more people on deck (although there quite a few 
already), and the .NET community would benefit from easier maintenance 
and faster code-base.

What I'm offering is a model already in use by several OS projects 
(SQLite.NET for example), and is quite successful. Let me know how this 
sounds.

Itamar.

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Josh Handel <Jo...@catapultsystems.com>]

The vibe I am getting from this discussion is seems to be the following.. (this is just a summary of the directions this conversation seems to me to be going).

1) A conceptual port of Lucene is probably not a good idea because search is such a complex and difficult task.  
2) Line by Line port works (as it has in the past) but is VERY time consuming... If we can find automation tools and a way to parallelize the process that would go a long way to helping this project survive.
3) We have LOTS of consumers of the tool, but limited (1) real committer, that's because the line by line port isn't fun, exciting, and grueling.
4) We need a community of committers 
5) We need to revamp the website
6) It may be worth the long term value of the project to let it slip to incubator, and then re-emerge as a TLP, especially as hanging out under the Java Lucene could be part of what is hurting the project's success in gathering other supporters.
7) There is an overwhelming desire to have .NETaffied API, perhaps as a wrapper, or as a core deliverable.
8) There are a handful of automated tools to help with java to c# porting, but we need to test them (and a fair bit of trepidation about if they will provide value to the process)
9) If we find one we like and its not OSS what does that mean? (Sponsorships, Apache Software Foundation, etc)

I think that concats most of the biggest points we are talking about..  if I missed something its an oversight.. Append it to the list :-)..

I'm thinking once we understand all the moving parts to this discussion we can start (as a community) bringing points to consensus and moving forward to coming up with a plan of attack.

Josh

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Josh Handel <Jo...@catapultsystems.com>]

The vibe I am getting from this discussion is seems to be the following.. (this is just a summary of the directions this conversation seems to me to be going).

1) A conceptual port of Lucene is probably not a good idea because search is such a complex and difficult task.  
2) Line by Line port works (as it has in the past) but is VERY time consuming... If we can find automation tools and a way to parallelize the process that would go a long way to helping this project survive.
3) We have LOTS of consumers of the tool, but limited (1) real committer, that's because the line by line port isn't fun, exciting, and grueling.
4) We need a community of committers 
5) We need to revamp the website
6) It may be worth the long term value of the project to let it slip to incubator, and then re-emerge as a TLP, especially as hanging out under the Java Lucene could be part of what is hurting the project's success in gathering other supporters.
7) There is an overwhelming desire to have .NETaffied API, perhaps as a wrapper, or as a core deliverable.
8) There are a handful of automated tools to help with java to c# porting, but we need to test them (and a fair bit of trepidation about if they will provide value to the process)
9) If we find one we like and its not OSS what does that mean? (Sponsorships, Apache Software Foundation, etc)

I think that concats most of the biggest points we are talking about..  if I missed something its an oversight.. Append it to the list :-)..

I'm thinking once we understand all the moving parts to this discussion we can start (as a community) bringing points to consensus and moving forward to coming up with a plan of attack.

Josh

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Digy <di...@gmail.com>]

> you basically only have one current person who is an active committer/PMC
member
Did you see 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ConfigureReport.jspa?versionId=-1&issu
eStatus=all&selectedProjectId=12310290&reportKey=com.sourcelabs.jira.plugin.
report.contributions%3Acontributionreport&Next=Next ?

DIGY

-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:21 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:

> Huh?  What I should have been clear and concise to anyone who has follow
the project for the past several years.
> 
> Lucene.Net has already been through the official process of being promoted
out of incubator status.  Why is it necessary to repeat this process?
> The PMC failed to respond to the list when problems with updating the web
site were discussed.  So updating the web site is insufficient.
> There were also a number of issues with renaming the project to remove
"incubator" from the mailing lists and web site reverences.
> We should not repeat or reverse this unless absolutely necessary.
> A brief pause in development and list discussions should not cause the PMC
such worries about the vitality of the project.

You could write up a Board proposal to go straight to TLP status.  I'd have
a hard time recommending to the Board that they pass it but maybe they would
b/c as I outlined in my original email, this project isn't up to ASF
community standards and not only that you basically only have one current
person who is an active committer/PMC member.  As I also outlined in earlier
emails, the current Lucene PMC is not the appropriate place for Lucene.NET
b/c the members of the PMC are not interested in .NET.  George is the only
one and he has been gone for the past few months (if not more).  That isn't
to pick on George, it's to point out that a project has to be more than just
one committer to be a part of the ASF, especially one that has been around
this long.  So, in order  for this project to get more committers, people
need to step up and contribute.  Therein lies the conundrum.  The current
PMC is not equipped to judge those contributions since none of us use .NET.
Hence, going back to incubation gets you a new set of committers and it gets
you your own PMC where you can set the criteria for committership (within
ASF guidelines) and where the PMC is made up of the stakeholders in the
project.  Being a part of a project is about more than just the name, it's
about the community of people who use and contribute to that project.  The
.NET community is distinct from the Lucene Java community, despite it being
a port, therefore they should be separate.

See http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html

As to those questions about forking somewhere else, that is certainly
something that can be done under a different name.  Lucene.NET is owned by
the ASF.  You can take the code and go call it something else, no problem.

As to what the ASF brings, that's up to the community to decide.  The number
one thing I think is our "community over code" approach.  Anyone can throw
code up on Github/Google Code, etc. and call it open source.  If you are
lucky, you might attract a following.  If the person who started that
project is nice, they might even allow other committers.  At the end of the
day, however, I think the ASF's meritocracy is why I choose to put my open
source efforts into the ASF.  It is just one way, not _the_ way.  Having
started other projects here at the ASF (Mahout), I can tell you the ASF is
one of the few orgs. out there that can attract large bases of
users/contributors almost instantaneously.  In other words, the ASF has
brand recognition like few other places.  Again, this is just my view.  I'm
not going to force it on you, but you are already here, so it seems like
it's less friction to go back to the incubator and graduate to TLP than to
fork and try to get people to go find you under a different name.

My two cents,
Grant=

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Arne Claassen <ar...@mindtouch.com>]

Forking and going somewhere else certainly has the "grass is greener"  
gleam to it.

The association with the much larger java Lucene community and the  
expertise that community has (since the .NET community seems to be  
mostly consumers of the tech, given the various comments about the  
complexity of the code base), is a big boost for Lucene.NET. That's  
both the name recognition and easy transfer of knowledge from one to  
the other.

That said, the ASF is not a foundation that is a natural home for .NET  
developers, which means that a lot of possible contributors are less  
likely to see it as a project they feel qualified to contribute.

Aside the name issue, I think what makes NHibernate successful is that  
it is maintained by a bunch of people who have deep involvement in the  
problem being solved. This allows them to be a divergent fork. I don't  
think Lucene.NET could pull that off. Unless Lucene.NET can attract  
people who understand the inner workings of Lucene, staying at the ASF  
with line-by-line porting is in the best interest of the health of the  
project.

Arne Claassen

MindTouch
San Diego, CA
http://twitter.com/sdether

On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:20 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:
>
>> Huh?  What I should have been clear and concise to anyone who has  
>> follow the project for the past several years.
>>
>> Lucene.Net has already been through the official process of being  
>> promoted out of incubator status.  Why is it necessary to repeat  
>> this process?
>> The PMC failed to respond to the list when problems with updating  
>> the web site were discussed.  So updating the web site is  
>> insufficient.
>> There were also a number of issues with renaming the project to  
>> remove "incubator" from the mailing lists and web site reverences.
>> We should not repeat or reverse this unless absolutely necessary.
>> A brief pause in development and list discussions should not cause  
>> the PMC such worries about the vitality of the project.
>
> You could write up a Board proposal to go straight to TLP status.   
> I'd have a hard time recommending to the Board that they pass it but  
> maybe they would  b/c as I outlined in my original email, this  
> project isn't up to ASF community standards and not only that you  
> basically only have one current person who is an active committer/ 
> PMC member.  As I also outlined in earlier emails, the current  
> Lucene PMC is not the appropriate place for Lucene.NET b/c the  
> members of the PMC are not interested in .NET.  George is the only  
> one and he has been gone for the past few months (if not more).   
> That isn't to pick on George, it's to point out that a project has  
> to be more than just one committer to be a part of the ASF,  
> especially one that has been around this long.  So, in order  for  
> this project to get more committers, people need to step up and  
> contribute.  Therein lies the conundrum.  The current PMC is not  
> equipped to judge those contributions since none of us use .NET.   
> Hence, going back to incubation gets you a new set of committers and  
> it gets you your own PMC where you can set the criteria for  
> committership (within ASF guidelines) and where the PMC is made up  
> of the stakeholders in the project.  Being a part of a project is  
> about more than just the name, it's about the community of people  
> who use and contribute to that project.  The .NET community is  
> distinct from the Lucene Java community, despite it being a port,  
> therefore they should be separate.
>
> See http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
>
> As to those questions about forking somewhere else, that is  
> certainly something that can be done under a different name.   
> Lucene.NET is owned by the ASF.  You can take the code and go call  
> it something else, no problem.
>
> As to what the ASF brings, that's up to the community to decide.   
> The number one thing I think is our "community over code" approach.   
> Anyone can throw code up on Github/Google Code, etc. and call it  
> open source.  If you are lucky, you might attract a following.  If  
> the person who started that project is nice, they might even allow  
> other committers.  At the end of the day, however, I think the ASF's  
> meritocracy is why I choose to put my open source efforts into the  
> ASF.  It is just one way, not _the_ way.  Having started other  
> projects here at the ASF (Mahout), I can tell you the ASF is one of  
> the few orgs. out there that can attract large bases of users/ 
> contributors almost instantaneously.  In other words, the ASF has  
> brand recognition like few other places.  Again, this is just my  
> view.  I'm not going to force it on you, but you are already here,  
> so it seems like it's less friction to go back to the incubator and  
> graduate to TLP than to fork and try to get people to go find you  
> under a different name.
>
> My two cents,
> Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Arne Claassen <ar...@mindtouch.com>]

Forking and going somewhere else certainly has the "grass is greener"  
gleam to it.

The association with the much larger java Lucene community and the  
expertise that community has (since the .NET community seems to be  
mostly consumers of the tech, given the various comments about the  
complexity of the code base), is a big boost for Lucene.NET. That's  
both the name recognition and easy transfer of knowledge from one to  
the other.

That said, the ASF is not a foundation that is a natural home for .NET  
developers, which means that a lot of possible contributors are less  
likely to see it as a project they feel qualified to contribute.

Aside the name issue, I think what makes NHibernate successful is that  
it is maintained by a bunch of people who have deep involvement in the  
problem being solved. This allows them to be a divergent fork. I don't  
think Lucene.NET could pull that off. Unless Lucene.NET can attract  
people who understand the inner workings of Lucene, staying at the ASF  
with line-by-line porting is in the best interest of the health of the  
project.

Arne Claassen

MindTouch
San Diego, CA
http://twitter.com/sdether

On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:20 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:
>
>> Huh?  What I should have been clear and concise to anyone who has  
>> follow the project for the past several years.
>>
>> Lucene.Net has already been through the official process of being  
>> promoted out of incubator status.  Why is it necessary to repeat  
>> this process?
>> The PMC failed to respond to the list when problems with updating  
>> the web site were discussed.  So updating the web site is  
>> insufficient.
>> There were also a number of issues with renaming the project to  
>> remove "incubator" from the mailing lists and web site reverences.
>> We should not repeat or reverse this unless absolutely necessary.
>> A brief pause in development and list discussions should not cause  
>> the PMC such worries about the vitality of the project.
>
> You could write up a Board proposal to go straight to TLP status.   
> I'd have a hard time recommending to the Board that they pass it but  
> maybe they would  b/c as I outlined in my original email, this  
> project isn't up to ASF community standards and not only that you  
> basically only have one current person who is an active committer/ 
> PMC member.  As I also outlined in earlier emails, the current  
> Lucene PMC is not the appropriate place for Lucene.NET b/c the  
> members of the PMC are not interested in .NET.  George is the only  
> one and he has been gone for the past few months (if not more).   
> That isn't to pick on George, it's to point out that a project has  
> to be more than just one committer to be a part of the ASF,  
> especially one that has been around this long.  So, in order  for  
> this project to get more committers, people need to step up and  
> contribute.  Therein lies the conundrum.  The current PMC is not  
> equipped to judge those contributions since none of us use .NET.   
> Hence, going back to incubation gets you a new set of committers and  
> it gets you your own PMC where you can set the criteria for  
> committership (within ASF guidelines) and where the PMC is made up  
> of the stakeholders in the project.  Being a part of a project is  
> about more than just the name, it's about the community of people  
> who use and contribute to that project.  The .NET community is  
> distinct from the Lucene Java community, despite it being a port,  
> therefore they should be separate.
>
> See http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
>
> As to those questions about forking somewhere else, that is  
> certainly something that can be done under a different name.   
> Lucene.NET is owned by the ASF.  You can take the code and go call  
> it something else, no problem.
>
> As to what the ASF brings, that's up to the community to decide.   
> The number one thing I think is our "community over code" approach.   
> Anyone can throw code up on Github/Google Code, etc. and call it  
> open source.  If you are lucky, you might attract a following.  If  
> the person who started that project is nice, they might even allow  
> other committers.  At the end of the day, however, I think the ASF's  
> meritocracy is why I choose to put my open source efforts into the  
> ASF.  It is just one way, not _the_ way.  Having started other  
> projects here at the ASF (Mahout), I can tell you the ASF is one of  
> the few orgs. out there that can attract large bases of users/ 
> contributors almost instantaneously.  In other words, the ASF has  
> brand recognition like few other places.  Again, this is just my  
> view.  I'm not going to force it on you, but you are already here,  
> so it seems like it's less friction to go back to the incubator and  
> graduate to TLP than to fork and try to get people to go find you  
> under a different name.
>
> My two cents,
> Grant

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Digy <di...@gmail.com>]

> you basically only have one current person who is an active committer/PMC
member
Did you see 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ConfigureReport.jspa?versionId=-1&issu
eStatus=all&selectedProjectId=12310290&reportKey=com.sourcelabs.jira.plugin.
report.contributions%3Acontributionreport&Next=Next ?

DIGY

-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:21 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:

> Huh?  What I should have been clear and concise to anyone who has follow
the project for the past several years.
> 
> Lucene.Net has already been through the official process of being promoted
out of incubator status.  Why is it necessary to repeat this process?
> The PMC failed to respond to the list when problems with updating the web
site were discussed.  So updating the web site is insufficient.
> There were also a number of issues with renaming the project to remove
"incubator" from the mailing lists and web site reverences.
> We should not repeat or reverse this unless absolutely necessary.
> A brief pause in development and list discussions should not cause the PMC
such worries about the vitality of the project.

You could write up a Board proposal to go straight to TLP status.  I'd have
a hard time recommending to the Board that they pass it but maybe they would
b/c as I outlined in my original email, this project isn't up to ASF
community standards and not only that you basically only have one current
person who is an active committer/PMC member.  As I also outlined in earlier
emails, the current Lucene PMC is not the appropriate place for Lucene.NET
b/c the members of the PMC are not interested in .NET.  George is the only
one and he has been gone for the past few months (if not more).  That isn't
to pick on George, it's to point out that a project has to be more than just
one committer to be a part of the ASF, especially one that has been around
this long.  So, in order  for this project to get more committers, people
need to step up and contribute.  Therein lies the conundrum.  The current
PMC is not equipped to judge those contributions since none of us use .NET.
Hence, going back to incubation gets you a new set of committers and it gets
you your own PMC where you can set the criteria for committership (within
ASF guidelines) and where the PMC is made up of the stakeholders in the
project.  Being a part of a project is about more than just the name, it's
about the community of people who use and contribute to that project.  The
.NET community is distinct from the Lucene Java community, despite it being
a port, therefore they should be separate.

See http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html

As to those questions about forking somewhere else, that is certainly
something that can be done under a different name.  Lucene.NET is owned by
the ASF.  You can take the code and go call it something else, no problem.

As to what the ASF brings, that's up to the community to decide.  The number
one thing I think is our "community over code" approach.  Anyone can throw
code up on Github/Google Code, etc. and call it open source.  If you are
lucky, you might attract a following.  If the person who started that
project is nice, they might even allow other committers.  At the end of the
day, however, I think the ASF's meritocracy is why I choose to put my open
source efforts into the ASF.  It is just one way, not _the_ way.  Having
started other projects here at the ASF (Mahout), I can tell you the ASF is
one of the few orgs. out there that can attract large bases of
users/contributors almost instantaneously.  In other words, the ASF has
brand recognition like few other places.  Again, this is just my view.  I'm
not going to force it on you, but you are already here, so it seems like
it's less friction to go back to the incubator and graduate to TLP than to
fork and try to get people to go find you under a different name.

My two cents,
Grant=

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:

> Huh?  What I should have been clear and concise to anyone who has follow the project for the past several years.
> 
> Lucene.Net has already been through the official process of being promoted out of incubator status.  Why is it necessary to repeat this process?
> The PMC failed to respond to the list when problems with updating the web site were discussed.  So updating the web site is insufficient.
> There were also a number of issues with renaming the project to remove "incubator" from the mailing lists and web site reverences.
> We should not repeat or reverse this unless absolutely necessary.
> A brief pause in development and list discussions should not cause the PMC such worries about the vitality of the project.

You could write up a Board proposal to go straight to TLP status.  I'd have a hard time recommending to the Board that they pass it but maybe they would  b/c as I outlined in my original email, this project isn't up to ASF community standards and not only that you basically only have one current person who is an active committer/PMC member.  As I also outlined in earlier emails, the current Lucene PMC is not the appropriate place for Lucene.NET b/c the members of the PMC are not interested in .NET.  George is the only one and he has been gone for the past few months (if not more).  That isn't to pick on George, it's to point out that a project has to be more than just one committer to be a part of the ASF, especially one that has been around this long.  So, in order  for this project to get more committers, people need to step up and contribute.  Therein lies the conundrum.  The current PMC is not equipped to judge those contributions since none of us use .NET.  Hence, going back to incubation gets you a new set of committers and it gets you your own PMC where you can set the criteria for committership (within ASF guidelines) and where the PMC is made up of the stakeholders in the project.  Being a part of a project is about more than just the name, it's about the community of people who use and contribute to that project.  The .NET community is distinct from the Lucene Java community, despite it being a port, therefore they should be separate.

See http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html

As to those questions about forking somewhere else, that is certainly something that can be done under a different name.  Lucene.NET is owned by the ASF.  You can take the code and go call it something else, no problem.

As to what the ASF brings, that's up to the community to decide.  The number one thing I think is our "community over code" approach.  Anyone can throw code up on Github/Google Code, etc. and call it open source.  If you are lucky, you might attract a following.  If the person who started that project is nice, they might even allow other committers.  At the end of the day, however, I think the ASF's meritocracy is why I choose to put my open source efforts into the ASF.  It is just one way, not _the_ way.  Having started other projects here at the ASF (Mahout), I can tell you the ASF is one of the few orgs. out there that can attract large bases of users/contributors almost instantaneously.  In other words, the ASF has brand recognition like few other places.  Again, this is just my view.  I'm not going to force it on you, but you are already here, so it seems like it's less friction to go back to the incubator and graduate to TLP than to fork and try to get people to go find you under a different name.

My two cents,
Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:

> Huh?  What I should have been clear and concise to anyone who has follow the project for the past several years.
> 
> Lucene.Net has already been through the official process of being promoted out of incubator status.  Why is it necessary to repeat this process?
> The PMC failed to respond to the list when problems with updating the web site were discussed.  So updating the web site is insufficient.
> There were also a number of issues with renaming the project to remove "incubator" from the mailing lists and web site reverences.
> We should not repeat or reverse this unless absolutely necessary.
> A brief pause in development and list discussions should not cause the PMC such worries about the vitality of the project.

You could write up a Board proposal to go straight to TLP status.  I'd have a hard time recommending to the Board that they pass it but maybe they would  b/c as I outlined in my original email, this project isn't up to ASF community standards and not only that you basically only have one current person who is an active committer/PMC member.  As I also outlined in earlier emails, the current Lucene PMC is not the appropriate place for Lucene.NET b/c the members of the PMC are not interested in .NET.  George is the only one and he has been gone for the past few months (if not more).  That isn't to pick on George, it's to point out that a project has to be more than just one committer to be a part of the ASF, especially one that has been around this long.  So, in order  for this project to get more committers, people need to step up and contribute.  Therein lies the conundrum.  The current PMC is not equipped to judge those contributions since none of us use .NET.  Hence, going back to incubation gets you a new set of committers and it gets you your own PMC where you can set the criteria for committership (within ASF guidelines) and where the PMC is made up of the stakeholders in the project.  Being a part of a project is about more than just the name, it's about the community of people who use and contribute to that project.  The .NET community is distinct from the Lucene Java community, despite it being a port, therefore they should be separate.

See http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html

As to those questions about forking somewhere else, that is certainly something that can be done under a different name.  Lucene.NET is owned by the ASF.  You can take the code and go call it something else, no problem.

As to what the ASF brings, that's up to the community to decide.  The number one thing I think is our "community over code" approach.  Anyone can throw code up on Github/Google Code, etc. and call it open source.  If you are lucky, you might attract a following.  If the person who started that project is nice, they might even allow other committers.  At the end of the day, however, I think the ASF's meritocracy is why I choose to put my open source efforts into the ASF.  It is just one way, not _the_ way.  Having started other projects here at the ASF (Mahout), I can tell you the ASF is one of the few orgs. out there that can attract large bases of users/contributors almost instantaneously.  In other words, the ASF has brand recognition like few other places.  Again, this is just my view.  I'm not going to force it on you, but you are already here, so it seems like it's less friction to go back to the incubator and graduate to TLP than to fork and try to get people to go find you under a different name.

My two cents,
Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:

> Huh?  What I should have been clear and concise to anyone who has follow the project for the past several years.
> 
> Lucene.Net has already been through the official process of being promoted out of incubator status.  Why is it necessary to repeat this process?
> The PMC failed to respond to the list when problems with updating the web site were discussed.  So updating the web site is insufficient.
> There were also a number of issues with renaming the project to remove "incubator" from the mailing lists and web site reverences.
> We should not repeat or reverse this unless absolutely necessary.
> A brief pause in development and list discussions should not cause the PMC such worries about the vitality of the project.

You could write up a Board proposal to go straight to TLP status.  I'd have a hard time recommending to the Board that they pass it but maybe they would  b/c as I outlined in my original email, this project isn't up to ASF community standards and not only that you basically only have one current person who is an active committer/PMC member.  As I also outlined in earlier emails, the current Lucene PMC is not the appropriate place for Lucene.NET b/c the members of the PMC are not interested in .NET.  George is the only one and he has been gone for the past few months (if not more).  That isn't to pick on George, it's to point out that a project has to be more than just one committer to be a part of the ASF, especially one that has been around this long.  So, in order  for this project to get more committers, people need to step up and contribute.  Therein lies the conundrum.  The current PMC is not equipped to judge those contributions since none of us use .NET.  Hence, going back to incubation gets you a new set of committers and it gets you your own PMC where you can set the criteria for committership (within ASF guidelines) and where the PMC is made up of the stakeholders in the project.  Being a part of a project is about more than just the name, it's about the community of people who use and contribute to that project.  The .NET community is distinct from the Lucene Java community, despite it being a port, therefore they should be separate.

See http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html

As to those questions about forking somewhere else, that is certainly something that can be done under a different name.  Lucene.NET is owned by the ASF.  You can take the code and go call it something else, no problem.

As to what the ASF brings, that's up to the community to decide.  The number one thing I think is our "community over code" approach.  Anyone can throw code up on Github/Google Code, etc. and call it open source.  If you are lucky, you might attract a following.  If the person who started that project is nice, they might even allow other committers.  At the end of the day, however, I think the ASF's meritocracy is why I choose to put my open source efforts into the ASF.  It is just one way, not _the_ way.  Having started other projects here at the ASF (Mahout), I can tell you the ASF is one of the few orgs. out there that can attract large bases of users/contributors almost instantaneously.  In other words, the ASF has brand recognition like few other places.  Again, this is just my view.  I'm not going to force it on you, but you are already here, so it seems like it's less friction to go back to the incubator and graduate to TLP than to fork and try to get people to go find you under a different name.

My two cents,
Grant

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

["Granroth, Neal V." <ne...@thermofisher.com>]

Huh?  What I should have been clear and concise to anyone who has follow the project for the past several years.

Lucene.Net has already been through the official process of being promoted out of incubator status.  Why is it necessary to repeat this process?
The PMC failed to respond to the list when problems with updating the web site were discussed.  So updating the web site is insufficient.
There were also a number of issues with renaming the project to remove "incubator" from the mailing lists and web site reverences.
We should not repeat or reverse this unless absolutely necessary.
A brief pause in development and list discussions should not cause the PMC such worries about the vitality of the project.


- Neal


-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Handel [mailto:Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:33 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Lucene mailing list
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

A better way to put that is.. Thank you for the background, we would hate to repeat history due to being un-aware of it.. 

Now to returned to our regularly scheduled repeat of history (new and improved with "informed" action :-P).

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:21 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Lucene mailing list
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status


We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?
- Neal


-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 6:38 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Oct 30, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Michael Mitiaguin wrote:

> I've been using Lucene.Net since 2005 and know its history quite well. Just
> some comments :
> 
> 1.  What actually PMC expects ?

At this point, I think the PMC expects to see a plan and action for either going back to Incubation and becoming a standalone project or going to the Attic and then being maintained elsewhere. In either case, it is clear that it is in the best interest of the .NET community to have some self-determination.

Based on the messages here, I think you have enough volunteers to go back to the Incubator and try again.  I would suggest one of you volunteers browses over to http://incubator.apache.org and take a look at what it means to put together an entry proposal (basically, you need a Wiki page outlining the proposal) and then solicit mentors/champions on general@incubator.apache.org and then call a vote.

-Grant

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

["Granroth, Neal V." <ne...@thermofisher.com>]

Huh?  What I should have been clear and concise to anyone who has follow the project for the past several years.

Lucene.Net has already been through the official process of being promoted out of incubator status.  Why is it necessary to repeat this process?
The PMC failed to respond to the list when problems with updating the web site were discussed.  So updating the web site is insufficient.
There were also a number of issues with renaming the project to remove "incubator" from the mailing lists and web site reverences.
We should not repeat or reverse this unless absolutely necessary.
A brief pause in development and list discussions should not cause the PMC such worries about the vitality of the project.


- Neal


-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Handel [mailto:Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:33 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Lucene mailing list
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

A better way to put that is.. Thank you for the background, we would hate to repeat history due to being un-aware of it.. 

Now to returned to our regularly scheduled repeat of history (new and improved with "informed" action :-P).

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:21 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Lucene mailing list
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status


We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?
- Neal


-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 6:38 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Oct 30, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Michael Mitiaguin wrote:

> I've been using Lucene.Net since 2005 and know its history quite well. Just
> some comments :
> 
> 1.  What actually PMC expects ?

At this point, I think the PMC expects to see a plan and action for either going back to Incubation and becoming a standalone project or going to the Attic and then being maintained elsewhere. In either case, it is clear that it is in the best interest of the .NET community to have some self-determination.

Based on the messages here, I think you have enough volunteers to go back to the Incubator and try again.  I would suggest one of you volunteers browses over to http://incubator.apache.org and take a look at what it means to put together an entry proposal (basically, you need a Wiki page outlining the proposal) and then solicit mentors/champions on general@incubator.apache.org and then call a vote.

-Grant

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

["Granroth, Neal V." <ne...@thermofisher.com>]

Huh?  What I should have been clear and concise to anyone who has follow the project for the past several years.

Lucene.Net has already been through the official process of being promoted out of incubator status.  Why is it necessary to repeat this process?
The PMC failed to respond to the list when problems with updating the web site were discussed.  So updating the web site is insufficient.
There were also a number of issues with renaming the project to remove "incubator" from the mailing lists and web site reverences.
We should not repeat or reverse this unless absolutely necessary.
A brief pause in development and list discussions should not cause the PMC such worries about the vitality of the project.


- Neal


-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Handel [mailto:Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:33 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Lucene mailing list
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

A better way to put that is.. Thank you for the background, we would hate to repeat history due to being un-aware of it.. 

Now to returned to our regularly scheduled repeat of history (new and improved with "informed" action :-P).

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:21 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Lucene mailing list
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status


We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?
- Neal


-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 6:38 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Oct 30, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Michael Mitiaguin wrote:

> I've been using Lucene.Net since 2005 and know its history quite well. Just
> some comments :
> 
> 1.  What actually PMC expects ?

At this point, I think the PMC expects to see a plan and action for either going back to Incubation and becoming a standalone project or going to the Attic and then being maintained elsewhere. In either case, it is clear that it is in the best interest of the .NET community to have some self-determination.

Based on the messages here, I think you have enough volunteers to go back to the Incubator and try again.  I would suggest one of you volunteers browses over to http://incubator.apache.org and take a look at what it means to put together an entry proposal (basically, you need a Wiki page outlining the proposal) and then solicit mentors/champions on general@incubator.apache.org and then call a vote.

-Grant

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Josh Handel <Jo...@catapultsystems.com>]

A better way to put that is.. Thank you for the background, we would hate to repeat history due to being un-aware of it.. 

Now to returned to our regularly scheduled repeat of history (new and improved with "informed" action :-P).

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:21 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Lucene mailing list
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status


We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?
- Neal


-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 6:38 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Oct 30, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Michael Mitiaguin wrote:

> I've been using Lucene.Net since 2005 and know its history quite well. Just
> some comments :
> 
> 1.  What actually PMC expects ?

At this point, I think the PMC expects to see a plan and action for either going back to Incubation and becoming a standalone project or going to the Attic and then being maintained elsewhere. In either case, it is clear that it is in the best interest of the .NET community to have some self-determination.

Based on the messages here, I think you have enough volunteers to go back to the Incubator and try again.  I would suggest one of you volunteers browses over to http://incubator.apache.org and take a look at what it means to put together an entry proposal (basically, you need a Wiki page outlining the proposal) and then solicit mentors/champions on general@incubator.apache.org and then call a vote.

-Grant

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

["Granroth, Neal V." <ne...@thermofisher.com>]

We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?
- Neal


-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 6:38 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Oct 30, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Michael Mitiaguin wrote:

> I've been using Lucene.Net since 2005 and know its history quite well. Just
> some comments :
> 
> 1.  What actually PMC expects ?

At this point, I think the PMC expects to see a plan and action for either going back to Incubation and becoming a standalone project or going to the Attic and then being maintained elsewhere. In either case, it is clear that it is in the best interest of the .NET community to have some self-determination.

Based on the messages here, I think you have enough volunteers to go back to the Incubator and try again.  I would suggest one of you volunteers browses over to http://incubator.apache.org and take a look at what it means to put together an entry proposal (basically, you need a Wiki page outlining the proposal) and then solicit mentors/champions on general@incubator.apache.org and then call a vote.

-Grant

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

["Granroth, Neal V." <ne...@thermofisher.com>]

We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?
- Neal


-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 6:38 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Oct 30, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Michael Mitiaguin wrote:

> I've been using Lucene.Net since 2005 and know its history quite well. Just
> some comments :
> 
> 1.  What actually PMC expects ?

At this point, I think the PMC expects to see a plan and action for either going back to Incubation and becoming a standalone project or going to the Attic and then being maintained elsewhere. In either case, it is clear that it is in the best interest of the .NET community to have some self-determination.

Based on the messages here, I think you have enough volunteers to go back to the Incubator and try again.  I would suggest one of you volunteers browses over to http://incubator.apache.org and take a look at what it means to put together an entry proposal (basically, you need a Wiki page outlining the proposal) and then solicit mentors/champions on general@incubator.apache.org and then call a vote.

-Grant

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

["Granroth, Neal V." <ne...@thermofisher.com>]

We've already been through this process once before.  Why repeat?
- Neal


-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 6:38 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; Lucene mailing list
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Oct 30, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Michael Mitiaguin wrote:

> I've been using Lucene.Net since 2005 and know its history quite well. Just
> some comments :
> 
> 1.  What actually PMC expects ?

At this point, I think the PMC expects to see a plan and action for either going back to Incubation and becoming a standalone project or going to the Attic and then being maintained elsewhere. In either case, it is clear that it is in the best interest of the .NET community to have some self-determination.

Based on the messages here, I think you have enough volunteers to go back to the Incubator and try again.  I would suggest one of you volunteers browses over to http://incubator.apache.org and take a look at what it means to put together an entry proposal (basically, you need a Wiki page outlining the proposal) and then solicit mentors/champions on general@incubator.apache.org and then call a vote.

-Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Oct 30, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Michael Mitiaguin wrote:

> I've been using Lucene.Net since 2005 and know its history quite well. Just
> some comments :
> 
> 1.  What actually PMC expects ?

At this point, I think the PMC expects to see a plan and action for either going back to Incubation and becoming a standalone project or going to the Attic and then being maintained elsewhere. In either case, it is clear that it is in the best interest of the .NET community to have some self-determination.

Based on the messages here, I think you have enough volunteers to go back to the Incubator and try again.  I would suggest one of you volunteers browses over to http://incubator.apache.org and take a look at what it means to put together an entry proposal (basically, you need a Wiki page outlining the proposal) and then solicit mentors/champions on general@incubator.apache.org and then call a vote.

-Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Oct 30, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Michael Mitiaguin wrote:

> I've been using Lucene.Net since 2005 and know its history quite well. Just
> some comments :
> 
> 1.  What actually PMC expects ?

At this point, I think the PMC expects to see a plan and action for either going back to Incubation and becoming a standalone project or going to the Attic and then being maintained elsewhere. In either case, it is clear that it is in the best interest of the .NET community to have some self-determination.

Based on the messages here, I think you have enough volunteers to go back to the Incubator and try again.  I would suggest one of you volunteers browses over to http://incubator.apache.org and take a look at what it means to put together an entry proposal (basically, you need a Wiki page outlining the proposal) and then solicit mentors/champions on general@incubator.apache.org and then call a vote.

-Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Oct 30, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Michael Mitiaguin wrote:

> I've been using Lucene.Net since 2005 and know its history quite well. Just
> some comments :
> 
> 1.  What actually PMC expects ?

At this point, I think the PMC expects to see a plan and action for either going back to Incubation and becoming a standalone project or going to the Attic and then being maintained elsewhere. In either case, it is clear that it is in the best interest of the .NET community to have some self-determination.

Based on the messages here, I think you have enough volunteers to go back to the Incubator and try again.  I would suggest one of you volunteers browses over to http://incubator.apache.org and take a look at what it means to put together an entry proposal (basically, you need a Wiki page outlining the proposal) and then solicit mentors/champions on general@incubator.apache.org and then call a vote.

-Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Michael Mitiaguin <mi...@gmail.com>]

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 .

Michael

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> 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.
>
> DIGY
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 11:48 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> 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=
>
>

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Digy <di...@gmail.com>]

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.

DIGY



-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 11:48 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
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=

Re: NHibernate.Search (RE: Lucene.NET Community Status)

[Aaron Powell <me...@aaron-powell.com>]

You can found out here:
http://groups.google.com/group/ravendb/browse_thread/thread/a32bda2d4383c98f/5ae637866ba5f514?lnk=raot#5ae637866ba5f514
 ;)

I've done a bit of stuff using Lucene.Net directly (which I used as an
example on my blog) but the primary way which I work with Lucene is through
an open source project I contribute on called Examine (
http://examine.codeplex.com) which is a wrapper for Lucene.Net that
abstracts away some of the complexities of Lucene and used config-based
index definitions. It's also included OOTB with Umbraco (
http://umbraco.codeplex.com)
Aaron Powell
Umbraco Ninja

http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com


On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Khash Sajadi <kh...@sajadi.co.uk> wrote:

> I wonder what Ayende has to say on this topic since RavenDB uses Lucene.NET
> under the hood quite heavily.
>
> On 1 November 2010 12:51, Brian J. Sayatovic
> <bs...@creditinfonet.com>wrote:
>
> > I'm using Lucene.NET with NHibernate, but I'm *not* using
> > NHibernate.Search.  I only did a small integration thus far, and have
> spent
> > the past months focusing on other features of my application.  It is in
> the
> > interim that I learned of NHibernate.Search.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Brian.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nicholas Green [mailto:nicholas.green@starnow.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 11:14 PM
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >
> > As an aside - does anyone else here use NHibernate.Search?
> >
> > For those that don't know it uses Lucene.NET under the hood, which is why
> I
> > ask. I'm curious to know how many people use Lucene.net directly and how
> > many people have it wrapped in something else. I suspect that most people
> > are using directly, but it would be good to know if I am the only one or
> > not.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nicholas.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Noel Lysaght [mailto:lysaghtn@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, 1 November 2010 1:46 a.m.
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; general@lucene.apache.org
> > Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >
> > Hi Folks, count me in; I've being using Lucene.NET for over a year and
> have
> > found it to be the best Open Source .NET project we use in our company.
> >
> > I also think it would be a pity to move away from Apache and fork it
> > separately; Lucene is still maturing on the Java side of things very
> > quickly
> > and it's feature set is becoming more and more useful; it would be a pity
> > to
> > loose that momentum in the .NET side of things.
> > Anyway there are other options to make LUCENE.NET more .NET"ified" if
> > required, building additional libraries over the ported ones is just one
> > simple option.
> >
> > I have found very little reason to delve into the code other than to try
> > and
> > understand what it is doing before I post issues to the mailing list.
> > Overall I have found it to very stable and mature.
> >
> > If you think I would be of benefit I would have 6-8 hours a week I can
> > contribute to the project if that is sufficient enough, I know we're all
> > fighting hard at the moment to keep our heads above water, so until
> things
> > calm back down again that about all I'd be able to manage.
> >
> > Anyway let me know if I'd be of use, I have strong C# skills and 20+
> years
> > of development experience (obviously not all in C#).
> >
> > Kind Regards
> > Noel
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > From: "Frank Yu" <fr...@farpoint.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 9:44 AM
> > To: <lu...@lucene.apache.org>; <ge...@lucene.apache.org>
> > Cc: <lu...@lucene.apache.org>
> > Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >
> > > Grand,
> > >
> > > I have been using the Lucene.net for a year now and it's a wonderful
> > > project. I would like to participate and contribute in order to keep it
> > > alive. Please count me in.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Frank Yu
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 9:55 AM
> > > To: general@lucene.apache.org
> > > Cc: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org;
> lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> > >
> > >
> > > On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:52 AM, George Aroush wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Grant,
> > >>
> > >> I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
> > >> re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we
> > do
> > >> so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with
> > >> Lucene.Net
> > >> and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers?
> > >> What
> > >> criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and
> in
> > >> 3-6
> > >> months add / remove from the list?
> > >
> > > Here's the current list:
> > > George Aroush george @ aroush.net
> > > Işık YİĞİT (DIGY) digydigy @ gmail.com
> > > Doug Sale dsale @ myspace-inc.com
> > > Michael Garski mgarski @ myspace-inc.com
> > >
> > > Seeing how Doug, Isik and Michael haven't responded, you might want to
> > > track them down.  I think it is fine to see if they still want to
> > > participate, but I'd look for other people who want to volunteer too.
> >  I'd
> > > simply solicit names and add them to the Wiki proposal.  I don't think
> > > there is any requirement beyond that for incubation.  What the project
> > > needs right now is people who are willing to step up and act now.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by
> doing
> > >> so
> > >> it gets some extra visibility.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >>
> > >> -- George
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> > >> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
> > >> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > >> Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > >> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Grant and all,
> > >>>
> > >>> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the
> > end
> > >> of
> > >>> the year, we must:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
> > >>> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
> > >>> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
> > >>>
> > >>> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2,
> > Lucene.Net
> > >>> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
> > >>
> > >> Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood
> > >> contributing
> > >> to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been
> around
> > >> this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination,
> > >> i.e.
> > >> to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or
> > >> something
> > >> like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a
> > new
> > >> name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided
> by
> > >> a
> > >> PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
> > >> project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George,
> that
> > >> is
> > >> largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is
> not
> > >> informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc.
> > >> and
> > >> likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
> > >> instance.)
> > >>
> > >> In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
> > >> determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a
> > >> number
> > >> of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would
> go
> > >> back
> > >> to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least
> > >> 4-5
> > >> new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have
> 4-5
> > >> new
> > >> committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release
> > >> out,
> > >> clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code
> at
> > >> the
> > >> ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
> > >> sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for
> a
> > >> release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene
> > >> simply
> > >> because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the
> PMC
> > >> who
> > >> can verify the release is viable.)
> > >>
> > >> I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel
> it
> > >> is
> > >> part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but
> > >> beyond
> > >> that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think
> there
> > >> needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the
> best
> > >> of
> > >> luck in keeping the project alive.
> > >>
> > >> -Grant
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we
> > >>> can't
> > >>> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> -- George
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> > >>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
> > >>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > >>> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > >>> 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=
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --------------------------
> > >> Grant Ingersoll
> > >> http://www.lucidimagination.com
> > >>
> > >
> > > --------------------------
> > > Grant Ingersoll
> > > http://www.lucidimagination.com/
> > >
> > > Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
> > > http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: NHibernate.Search (RE: Lucene.NET Community Status)

[Khash Sajadi <kh...@sajadi.co.uk>]

I wonder what Ayende has to say on this topic since RavenDB uses Lucene.NET
under the hood quite heavily.

On 1 November 2010 12:51, Brian J. Sayatovic
<bs...@creditinfonet.com>wrote:

> I'm using Lucene.NET with NHibernate, but I'm *not* using
> NHibernate.Search.  I only did a small integration thus far, and have spent
> the past months focusing on other features of my application.  It is in the
> interim that I learned of NHibernate.Search.
>
> Regards,
> Brian.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Green [mailto:nicholas.green@starnow.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 11:14 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> As an aside - does anyone else here use NHibernate.Search?
>
> For those that don't know it uses Lucene.NET under the hood, which is why I
> ask. I'm curious to know how many people use Lucene.net directly and how
> many people have it wrapped in something else. I suspect that most people
> are using directly, but it would be good to know if I am the only one or
> not.
>
>
>
> Nicholas.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel Lysaght [mailto:lysaghtn@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, 1 November 2010 1:46 a.m.
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; general@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Hi Folks, count me in; I've being using Lucene.NET for over a year and have
> found it to be the best Open Source .NET project we use in our company.
>
> I also think it would be a pity to move away from Apache and fork it
> separately; Lucene is still maturing on the Java side of things very
> quickly
> and it's feature set is becoming more and more useful; it would be a pity
> to
> loose that momentum in the .NET side of things.
> Anyway there are other options to make LUCENE.NET more .NET"ified" if
> required, building additional libraries over the ported ones is just one
> simple option.
>
> I have found very little reason to delve into the code other than to try
> and
> understand what it is doing before I post issues to the mailing list.
> Overall I have found it to very stable and mature.
>
> If you think I would be of benefit I would have 6-8 hours a week I can
> contribute to the project if that is sufficient enough, I know we're all
> fighting hard at the moment to keep our heads above water, so until things
> calm back down again that about all I'd be able to manage.
>
> Anyway let me know if I'd be of use, I have strong C# skills and 20+ years
> of development experience (obviously not all in C#).
>
> Kind Regards
> Noel
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Frank Yu" <fr...@farpoint.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 9:44 AM
> To: <lu...@lucene.apache.org>; <ge...@lucene.apache.org>
> Cc: <lu...@lucene.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> > Grand,
> >
> > I have been using the Lucene.net for a year now and it's a wonderful
> > project. I would like to participate and contribute in order to keep it
> > alive. Please count me in.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Frank Yu
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 9:55 AM
> > To: general@lucene.apache.org
> > Cc: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >
> >
> > On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:52 AM, George Aroush wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Grant,
> >>
> >> I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
> >> re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we
> do
> >> so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with
> >> Lucene.Net
> >> and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers?
> >> What
> >> criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in
> >> 3-6
> >> months add / remove from the list?
> >
> > Here's the current list:
> > George Aroush george @ aroush.net
> > Işık YİĞİT (DIGY) digydigy @ gmail.com
> > Doug Sale dsale @ myspace-inc.com
> > Michael Garski mgarski @ myspace-inc.com
> >
> > Seeing how Doug, Isik and Michael haven't responded, you might want to
> > track them down.  I think it is fine to see if they still want to
> > participate, but I'd look for other people who want to volunteer too.
>  I'd
> > simply solicit names and add them to the Wiki proposal.  I don't think
> > there is any requirement beyond that for incubation.  What the project
> > needs right now is people who are willing to step up and act now.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing
> >> so
> >> it gets some extra visibility.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> -- George
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> >> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
> >> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >> Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Grant and all,
> >>>
> >>> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the
> end
> >> of
> >>> the year, we must:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
> >>> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
> >>> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
> >>>
> >>> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2,
> Lucene.Net
> >>> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
> >>
> >> Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood
> >> contributing
> >> to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
> >> this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination,
> >> i.e.
> >> to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or
> >> something
> >> like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a
> new
> >> name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by
> >> a
> >> PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
> >> project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that
> >> is
> >> largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
> >> informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc.
> >> and
> >> likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
> >> instance.)
> >>
> >> In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
> >> determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a
> >> number
> >> of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go
> >> back
> >> to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least
> >> 4-5
> >> new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5
> >> new
> >> committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release
> >> out,
> >> clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at
> >> the
> >> ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
> >> sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
> >> release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene
> >> simply
> >> because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC
> >> who
> >> can verify the release is viable.)
> >>
> >> I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it
> >> is
> >> part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but
> >> beyond
> >> that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
> >> needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best
> >> of
> >> luck in keeping the project alive.
> >>
> >> -Grant
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we
> >>> can't
> >>> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> -- George
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> >>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
> >>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >>> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >>> 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=
> >>>
> >>
> >> --------------------------
> >> Grant Ingersoll
> >> http://www.lucidimagination.com
> >>
> >
> > --------------------------
> > Grant Ingersoll
> > http://www.lucidimagination.com/
> >
> > Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
> > http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
> >
> >
> >
>
>

NHibernate.Search (RE: Lucene.NET Community Status)

["Brian J. Sayatovic" <bs...@creditinfonet.com>]

I'm using Lucene.NET with NHibernate, but I'm *not* using NHibernate.Search.  I only did a small integration thus far, and have spent the past months focusing on other features of my application.  It is in the interim that I learned of NHibernate.Search.

Regards,
Brian.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Green [mailto:nicholas.green@starnow.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 11:14 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

As an aside - does anyone else here use NHibernate.Search?

For those that don't know it uses Lucene.NET under the hood, which is why I ask. I'm curious to know how many people use Lucene.net directly and how many people have it wrapped in something else. I suspect that most people are using directly, but it would be good to know if I am the only one or not.



Nicholas.


-----Original Message-----
From: Noel Lysaght [mailto:lysaghtn@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, 1 November 2010 1:46 a.m.
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; general@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

Hi Folks, count me in; I've being using Lucene.NET for over a year and have 
found it to be the best Open Source .NET project we use in our company.

I also think it would be a pity to move away from Apache and fork it 
separately; Lucene is still maturing on the Java side of things very quickly 
and it's feature set is becoming more and more useful; it would be a pity to 
loose that momentum in the .NET side of things.
Anyway there are other options to make LUCENE.NET more .NET"ified" if 
required, building additional libraries over the ported ones is just one 
simple option.

I have found very little reason to delve into the code other than to try and 
understand what it is doing before I post issues to the mailing list. 
Overall I have found it to very stable and mature.

If you think I would be of benefit I would have 6-8 hours a week I can 
contribute to the project if that is sufficient enough, I know we're all 
fighting hard at the moment to keep our heads above water, so until things 
calm back down again that about all I'd be able to manage.

Anyway let me know if I'd be of use, I have strong C# skills and 20+ years 
of development experience (obviously not all in C#).

Kind Regards
Noel

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Frank Yu" <fr...@farpoint.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 9:44 AM
To: <lu...@lucene.apache.org>; <ge...@lucene.apache.org>
Cc: <lu...@lucene.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

> Grand,
>
> I have been using the Lucene.net for a year now and it's a wonderful 
> project. I would like to participate and contribute in order to keep it 
> alive. Please count me in.
>
> Regards,
>
> Frank Yu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 9:55 AM
> To: general@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:52 AM, George Aroush wrote:
>
>> Hi Grant,
>>
>> I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
>> re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
>> so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with 
>> Lucene.Net
>> and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers? 
>> What
>> criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in 
>> 3-6
>> months add / remove from the list?
>
> Here's the current list:
> George Aroush george @ aroush.net
> Işık YİĞİT (DIGY) digydigy @ gmail.com
> Doug Sale dsale @ myspace-inc.com
> Michael Garski mgarski @ myspace-inc.com
>
> Seeing how Doug, Isik and Michael haven't responded, you might want to 
> track them down.  I think it is fine to see if they still want to 
> participate, but I'd look for other people who want to volunteer too.  I'd 
> simply solicit names and add them to the Wiki proposal.  I don't think 
> there is any requirement beyond that for incubation.  What the project 
> needs right now is people who are willing to step up and act now.
>
>
>>
>> Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing 
>> so
>> it gets some extra visibility.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -- George
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Grant and all,
>>>
>>> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
>> of
>>> the year, we must:
>>>
>>> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
>>> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
>>> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
>>>
>>> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
>>> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
>>
>> Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood 
>> contributing
>> to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
>> this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, 
>> i.e.
>> to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or 
>> something
>> like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
>> name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by 
>> a
>> PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
>> project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that 
>> is
>> largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
>> informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. 
>> and
>> likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
>> instance.)
>>
>> In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
>> determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a 
>> number
>> of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go 
>> back
>> to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 
>> 4-5
>> new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 
>> new
>> committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release 
>> out,
>> clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at 
>> the
>> ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
>> sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
>> release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene 
>> simply
>> because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC 
>> who
>> can verify the release is viable.)
>>
>> I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it 
>> is
>> part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but 
>> beyond
>> that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
>> needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best 
>> of
>> luck in keeping the project alive.
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we 
>>> can't
>>> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> -- George
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> 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=
>>>
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Grant Ingersoll
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>
> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>
>
> 

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Artem Chereisky <a....@gmail.com>]

Directly

On 01/11/2010, at 14:13, "Nicholas Green" <ni...@starnow.com> wrote:

> As an aside - does anyone else here use NHibernate.Search?
> 
> For those that don't know it uses Lucene.NET under the hood, which is why I ask. I'm curious to know how many people use Lucene.net directly and how many people have it wrapped in something else. I suspect that most people are using directly, but it would be good to know if I am the only one or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Nicholas.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel Lysaght [mailto:lysaghtn@hotmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, 1 November 2010 1:46 a.m.
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; general@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> 
> Hi Folks, count me in; I've being using Lucene.NET for over a year and have 
> found it to be the best Open Source .NET project we use in our company.
> 
> I also think it would be a pity to move away from Apache and fork it 
> separately; Lucene is still maturing on the Java side of things very quickly 
> and it's feature set is becoming more and more useful; it would be a pity to 
> loose that momentum in the .NET side of things.
> Anyway there are other options to make LUCENE.NET more .NET"ified" if 
> required, building additional libraries over the ported ones is just one 
> simple option.
> 
> I have found very little reason to delve into the code other than to try and 
> understand what it is doing before I post issues to the mailing list. 
> Overall I have found it to very stable and mature.
> 
> If you think I would be of benefit I would have 6-8 hours a week I can 
> contribute to the project if that is sufficient enough, I know we're all 
> fighting hard at the moment to keep our heads above water, so until things 
> calm back down again that about all I'd be able to manage.
> 
> Anyway let me know if I'd be of use, I have strong C# skills and 20+ years 
> of development experience (obviously not all in C#).
> 
> Kind Regards
> Noel
> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Frank Yu" <fr...@farpoint.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 9:44 AM
> To: <lu...@lucene.apache.org>; <ge...@lucene.apache.org>
> Cc: <lu...@lucene.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
> 
>> Grand,
>> 
>> I have been using the Lucene.net for a year now and it's a wonderful 
>> project. I would like to participate and contribute in order to keep it 
>> alive. Please count me in.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Frank Yu
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 9:55 AM
>> To: general@lucene.apache.org
>> Cc: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:52 AM, George Aroush wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Grant,
>>> 
>>> I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
>>> re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
>>> so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with 
>>> Lucene.Net
>>> and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers? 
>>> What
>>> criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in 
>>> 3-6
>>> months add / remove from the list?
>> 
>> Here's the current list:
>> George Aroush george @ aroush.net
>> Işık YİĞİT (DIGY) digydigy @ gmail.com
>> Doug Sale dsale @ myspace-inc.com
>> Michael Garski mgarski @ myspace-inc.com
>> 
>> Seeing how Doug, Isik and Michael haven't responded, you might want to 
>> track them down.  I think it is fine to see if they still want to 
>> participate, but I'd look for other people who want to volunteer too.  I'd 
>> simply solicit names and add them to the Wiki proposal.  I don't think 
>> there is any requirement beyond that for incubation.  What the project 
>> needs right now is people who are willing to step up and act now.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing 
>>> so
>>> it gets some extra visibility.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> -- George
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>>> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>> Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Grant and all,
>>>> 
>>>> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
>>> of
>>>> the year, we must:
>>>> 
>>>> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
>>>> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
>>>> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
>>>> 
>>>> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
>>>> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
>>> 
>>> Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood 
>>> contributing
>>> to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
>>> this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, 
>>> i.e.
>>> to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or 
>>> something
>>> like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
>>> name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by 
>>> a
>>> PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
>>> project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that 
>>> is
>>> largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
>>> informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. 
>>> and
>>> likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
>>> instance.)
>>> 
>>> In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
>>> determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a 
>>> number
>>> of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go 
>>> back
>>> to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 
>>> 4-5
>>> new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 
>>> new
>>> committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release 
>>> out,
>>> clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at 
>>> the
>>> ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
>>> sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
>>> release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene 
>>> simply
>>> because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC 
>>> who
>>> can verify the release is viable.)
>>> 
>>> I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it 
>>> is
>>> part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but 
>>> beyond
>>> that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
>>> needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best 
>>> of
>>> luck in keeping the project alive.
>>> 
>>> -Grant
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we 
>>>> can't
>>>> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> -- George
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>>>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>> 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=
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --------------------------
>>> Grant Ingersoll
>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------
>> Grant Ingersoll
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>> 
>> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Nicholas Green <ni...@starnow.com>]

As an aside - does anyone else here use NHibernate.Search?

For those that don't know it uses Lucene.NET under the hood, which is why I ask. I'm curious to know how many people use Lucene.net directly and how many people have it wrapped in something else. I suspect that most people are using directly, but it would be good to know if I am the only one or not.



Nicholas.


-----Original Message-----
From: Noel Lysaght [mailto:lysaghtn@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, 1 November 2010 1:46 a.m.
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; general@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

Hi Folks, count me in; I've being using Lucene.NET for over a year and have 
found it to be the best Open Source .NET project we use in our company.

I also think it would be a pity to move away from Apache and fork it 
separately; Lucene is still maturing on the Java side of things very quickly 
and it's feature set is becoming more and more useful; it would be a pity to 
loose that momentum in the .NET side of things.
Anyway there are other options to make LUCENE.NET more .NET"ified" if 
required, building additional libraries over the ported ones is just one 
simple option.

I have found very little reason to delve into the code other than to try and 
understand what it is doing before I post issues to the mailing list. 
Overall I have found it to very stable and mature.

If you think I would be of benefit I would have 6-8 hours a week I can 
contribute to the project if that is sufficient enough, I know we're all 
fighting hard at the moment to keep our heads above water, so until things 
calm back down again that about all I'd be able to manage.

Anyway let me know if I'd be of use, I have strong C# skills and 20+ years 
of development experience (obviously not all in C#).

Kind Regards
Noel

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Frank Yu" <fr...@farpoint.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 9:44 AM
To: <lu...@lucene.apache.org>; <ge...@lucene.apache.org>
Cc: <lu...@lucene.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

> Grand,
>
> I have been using the Lucene.net for a year now and it's a wonderful 
> project. I would like to participate and contribute in order to keep it 
> alive. Please count me in.
>
> Regards,
>
> Frank Yu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 9:55 AM
> To: general@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:52 AM, George Aroush wrote:
>
>> Hi Grant,
>>
>> I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
>> re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
>> so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with 
>> Lucene.Net
>> and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers? 
>> What
>> criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in 
>> 3-6
>> months add / remove from the list?
>
> Here's the current list:
> George Aroush george @ aroush.net
> Işık YİĞİT (DIGY) digydigy @ gmail.com
> Doug Sale dsale @ myspace-inc.com
> Michael Garski mgarski @ myspace-inc.com
>
> Seeing how Doug, Isik and Michael haven't responded, you might want to 
> track them down.  I think it is fine to see if they still want to 
> participate, but I'd look for other people who want to volunteer too.  I'd 
> simply solicit names and add them to the Wiki proposal.  I don't think 
> there is any requirement beyond that for incubation.  What the project 
> needs right now is people who are willing to step up and act now.
>
>
>>
>> Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing 
>> so
>> it gets some extra visibility.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -- George
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Grant and all,
>>>
>>> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
>> of
>>> the year, we must:
>>>
>>> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
>>> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
>>> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
>>>
>>> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
>>> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
>>
>> Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood 
>> contributing
>> to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
>> this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, 
>> i.e.
>> to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or 
>> something
>> like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
>> name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by 
>> a
>> PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
>> project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that 
>> is
>> largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
>> informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. 
>> and
>> likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
>> instance.)
>>
>> In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
>> determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a 
>> number
>> of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go 
>> back
>> to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 
>> 4-5
>> new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 
>> new
>> committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release 
>> out,
>> clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at 
>> the
>> ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
>> sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
>> release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene 
>> simply
>> because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC 
>> who
>> can verify the release is viable.)
>>
>> I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it 
>> is
>> part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but 
>> beyond
>> that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
>> needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best 
>> of
>> luck in keeping the project alive.
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we 
>>> can't
>>> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> -- George
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> 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=
>>>
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Grant Ingersoll
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>
> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>
>
> 

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Noel Lysaght <ly...@hotmail.com>]

Hi Folks, count me in; I've being using Lucene.NET for over a year and have 
found it to be the best Open Source .NET project we use in our company.

I also think it would be a pity to move away from Apache and fork it 
separately; Lucene is still maturing on the Java side of things very quickly 
and it's feature set is becoming more and more useful; it would be a pity to 
loose that momentum in the .NET side of things.
Anyway there are other options to make LUCENE.NET more .NET"ified" if 
required, building additional libraries over the ported ones is just one 
simple option.

I have found very little reason to delve into the code other than to try and 
understand what it is doing before I post issues to the mailing list. 
Overall I have found it to very stable and mature.

If you think I would be of benefit I would have 6-8 hours a week I can 
contribute to the project if that is sufficient enough, I know we're all 
fighting hard at the moment to keep our heads above water, so until things 
calm back down again that about all I'd be able to manage.

Anyway let me know if I'd be of use, I have strong C# skills and 20+ years 
of development experience (obviously not all in C#).

Kind Regards
Noel

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Frank Yu" <fr...@farpoint.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 9:44 AM
To: <lu...@lucene.apache.org>; <ge...@lucene.apache.org>
Cc: <lu...@lucene.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

> Grand,
>
> I have been using the Lucene.net for a year now and it's a wonderful 
> project. I would like to participate and contribute in order to keep it 
> alive. Please count me in.
>
> Regards,
>
> Frank Yu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 9:55 AM
> To: general@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:52 AM, George Aroush wrote:
>
>> Hi Grant,
>>
>> I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
>> re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
>> so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with 
>> Lucene.Net
>> and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers? 
>> What
>> criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in 
>> 3-6
>> months add / remove from the list?
>
> Here's the current list:
> George Aroush george @ aroush.net
> Işık YİĞİT (DIGY) digydigy @ gmail.com
> Doug Sale dsale @ myspace-inc.com
> Michael Garski mgarski @ myspace-inc.com
>
> Seeing how Doug, Isik and Michael haven't responded, you might want to 
> track them down.  I think it is fine to see if they still want to 
> participate, but I'd look for other people who want to volunteer too.  I'd 
> simply solicit names and add them to the Wiki proposal.  I don't think 
> there is any requirement beyond that for incubation.  What the project 
> needs right now is people who are willing to step up and act now.
>
>
>>
>> Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing 
>> so
>> it gets some extra visibility.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -- George
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Grant and all,
>>>
>>> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
>> of
>>> the year, we must:
>>>
>>> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
>>> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
>>> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
>>>
>>> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
>>> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
>>
>> Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood 
>> contributing
>> to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
>> this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, 
>> i.e.
>> to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or 
>> something
>> like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
>> name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by 
>> a
>> PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
>> project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that 
>> is
>> largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
>> informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. 
>> and
>> likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
>> instance.)
>>
>> In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
>> determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a 
>> number
>> of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go 
>> back
>> to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 
>> 4-5
>> new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 
>> new
>> committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release 
>> out,
>> clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at 
>> the
>> ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
>> sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
>> release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene 
>> simply
>> because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC 
>> who
>> can verify the release is viable.)
>>
>> I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it 
>> is
>> part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but 
>> beyond
>> that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
>> needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best 
>> of
>> luck in keeping the project alive.
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we 
>>> can't
>>> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> -- George
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> 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=
>>>
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Grant Ingersoll
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>
> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>
>
> 

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Noel Lysaght <ly...@hotmail.com>]

Hi Folks, count me in; I've being using Lucene.NET for over a year and have 
found it to be the best Open Source .NET project we use in our company.

I also think it would be a pity to move away from Apache and fork it 
separately; Lucene is still maturing on the Java side of things very quickly 
and it's feature set is becoming more and more useful; it would be a pity to 
loose that momentum in the .NET side of things.
Anyway there are other options to make LUCENE.NET more .NET"ified" if 
required, building additional libraries over the ported ones is just one 
simple option.

I have found very little reason to delve into the code other than to try and 
understand what it is doing before I post issues to the mailing list. 
Overall I have found it to very stable and mature.

If you think I would be of benefit I would have 6-8 hours a week I can 
contribute to the project if that is sufficient enough, I know we're all 
fighting hard at the moment to keep our heads above water, so until things 
calm back down again that about all I'd be able to manage.

Anyway let me know if I'd be of use, I have strong C# skills and 20+ years 
of development experience (obviously not all in C#).

Kind Regards
Noel

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Frank Yu" <fr...@farpoint.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 9:44 AM
To: <lu...@lucene.apache.org>; <ge...@lucene.apache.org>
Cc: <lu...@lucene.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

> Grand,
>
> I have been using the Lucene.net for a year now and it's a wonderful 
> project. I would like to participate and contribute in order to keep it 
> alive. Please count me in.
>
> Regards,
>
> Frank Yu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 9:55 AM
> To: general@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:52 AM, George Aroush wrote:
>
>> Hi Grant,
>>
>> I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
>> re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
>> so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with 
>> Lucene.Net
>> and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers? 
>> What
>> criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in 
>> 3-6
>> months add / remove from the list?
>
> Here's the current list:
> George Aroush george @ aroush.net
> Işık YİĞİT (DIGY) digydigy @ gmail.com
> Doug Sale dsale @ myspace-inc.com
> Michael Garski mgarski @ myspace-inc.com
>
> Seeing how Doug, Isik and Michael haven't responded, you might want to 
> track them down.  I think it is fine to see if they still want to 
> participate, but I'd look for other people who want to volunteer too.  I'd 
> simply solicit names and add them to the Wiki proposal.  I don't think 
> there is any requirement beyond that for incubation.  What the project 
> needs right now is people who are willing to step up and act now.
>
>
>>
>> Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing 
>> so
>> it gets some extra visibility.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -- George
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Grant and all,
>>>
>>> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
>> of
>>> the year, we must:
>>>
>>> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
>>> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
>>> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
>>>
>>> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
>>> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
>>
>> Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood 
>> contributing
>> to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
>> this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, 
>> i.e.
>> to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or 
>> something
>> like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
>> name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by 
>> a
>> PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
>> project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that 
>> is
>> largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
>> informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. 
>> and
>> likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
>> instance.)
>>
>> In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
>> determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a 
>> number
>> of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go 
>> back
>> to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 
>> 4-5
>> new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 
>> new
>> committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release 
>> out,
>> clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at 
>> the
>> ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
>> sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
>> release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene 
>> simply
>> because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC 
>> who
>> can verify the release is viable.)
>>
>> I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it 
>> is
>> part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but 
>> beyond
>> that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
>> needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best 
>> of
>> luck in keeping the project alive.
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we 
>>> can't
>>> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> -- George
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> 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=
>>>
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Grant Ingersoll
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>
> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>
>
> 

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Frank Yu <fr...@farpoint.com>]

Grand,

I have been using the Lucene.net for a year now and it's a wonderful project. I would like to participate and contribute in order to keep it alive. Please count me in.

Regards,

Frank Yu

-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 9:55 AM
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:52 AM, George Aroush wrote:

> Hi Grant,
> 
> I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
> re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
> so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with Lucene.Net
> and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers?  What
> criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in 3-6
> months add / remove from the list?

Here's the current list:
George Aroush george @ aroush.net
Işık YİĞİT (DIGY) digydigy @ gmail.com 
Doug Sale dsale @ myspace-inc.com 
Michael Garski mgarski @ myspace-inc.com

Seeing how Doug, Isik and Michael haven't responded, you might want to track them down.  I think it is fine to see if they still want to participate, but I'd look for other people who want to volunteer too.  I'd simply solicit names and add them to the Wiki proposal.  I don't think there is any requirement beyond that for incubation.  What the project needs right now is people who are willing to step up and act now.


> 
> Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing so
> it gets some extra visibility.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- George
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> 
> 
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
> 
>> Hi Grant and all,
>> 
>> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
> of
>> the year, we must:
>> 
>> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
>> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
>> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
>> 
>> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
>> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
> 
> Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood contributing
> to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
> this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, i.e.
> to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or something
> like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
> name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by a
> PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
> project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that is
> largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
> informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. and
> likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
> instance.)   
> 
> In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
> determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a number
> of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go back
> to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 4-5
> new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 new
> committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release out,
> clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at the
> ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
> sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
> release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene simply
> because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC who
> can verify the release is viable.)  
> 
> I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it is
> part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but beyond
> that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
> needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best of
> luck in keeping the project alive.
> 
> -Grant
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
>> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> -- George
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> 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=
>> 
> 
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
> 

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com/

Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
http://www.lucidimagination.com/search

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Frank Yu <fr...@farpoint.com>]

Grand,

I have been using the Lucene.net for a year now and it's a wonderful project. I would like to participate and contribute in order to keep it alive. Please count me in.

Regards,

Frank Yu

-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 9:55 AM
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:52 AM, George Aroush wrote:

> Hi Grant,
> 
> I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
> re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
> so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with Lucene.Net
> and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers?  What
> criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in 3-6
> months add / remove from the list?

Here's the current list:
George Aroush george @ aroush.net
Işık YİĞİT (DIGY) digydigy @ gmail.com 
Doug Sale dsale @ myspace-inc.com 
Michael Garski mgarski @ myspace-inc.com

Seeing how Doug, Isik and Michael haven't responded, you might want to track them down.  I think it is fine to see if they still want to participate, but I'd look for other people who want to volunteer too.  I'd simply solicit names and add them to the Wiki proposal.  I don't think there is any requirement beyond that for incubation.  What the project needs right now is people who are willing to step up and act now.


> 
> Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing so
> it gets some extra visibility.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- George
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> 
> 
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
> 
>> Hi Grant and all,
>> 
>> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
> of
>> the year, we must:
>> 
>> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
>> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
>> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
>> 
>> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
>> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
> 
> Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood contributing
> to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
> this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, i.e.
> to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or something
> like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
> name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by a
> PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
> project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that is
> largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
> informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. and
> likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
> instance.)   
> 
> In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
> determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a number
> of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go back
> to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 4-5
> new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 new
> committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release out,
> clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at the
> ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
> sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
> release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene simply
> because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC who
> can verify the release is viable.)  
> 
> I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it is
> part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but beyond
> that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
> needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best of
> luck in keeping the project alive.
> 
> -Grant
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
>> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> -- George
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> 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=
>> 
> 
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
> 

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com/

Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
http://www.lucidimagination.com/search

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Artem Chereisky <a....@gmail.com>]

Hi,

I've never been part of an open source project, hence I have some questions:

1. What entity determines the general direction for the project? Some people
think it may benefit from branching away from the Java, other think it needs
to be as close to the Java code base as possible.
2. Is there an entity which distributes or suggests the distribution of the
work, a project manager, if you want? If someone is willing to contribute,
how does he/she know what to do?
3. Finally, is there a process that ensures the adequate skills of the
contributors? For example, I may be willing to contribute, but, am I
capable?

Over the last year I've developed a robust search machine using Lucene.net.
It's on the web and it services over a million search requests per day. I
may be willing to contribute but someone needs to hold my hand at the
beginning.

And, a big thank you to those guys who kept it going so far.


Regards,
Art


On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Frank Yu <fr...@farpoint.com> wrote:

> Grand,
>
> I have been using the Lucene.net for a year now and it's a wonderful
> project. I would like to participate and contribute in order to keep it
> alive. Please count me in.
>
> Regards,
>
> Frank Yu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 9:55 AM
> To: general@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:52 AM, George Aroush wrote:
>
> > Hi Grant,
> >
> > I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
> > re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
> > so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with
> Lucene.Net
> > and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers?
>  What
> > criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in
> 3-6
> > months add / remove from the list?
>
> Here's the current list:
> George Aroush george @ aroush.net
> Işık YİĞİT (DIGY) digydigy @ gmail.com
> Doug Sale dsale @ myspace-inc.com
> Michael Garski mgarski @ myspace-inc.com
>
> Seeing how Doug, Isik and Michael haven't responded, you might want to
> track them down.  I think it is fine to see if they still want to
> participate, but I'd look for other people who want to volunteer too.  I'd
> simply solicit names and add them to the Wiki proposal.  I don't think there
> is any requirement beyond that for incubation.  What the project needs right
> now is people who are willing to step up and act now.
>
>
> >
> > Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing
> so
> > it gets some extra visibility.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -- George
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >
> >
> > On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Grant and all,
> >>
> >> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
> > of
> >> the year, we must:
> >>
> >> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
> >> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
> >> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
> >>
> >> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
> >> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
> >
> > Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood
> contributing
> > to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
> > this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination,
> i.e.
> > to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or
> something
> > like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
> > name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by
> a
> > PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
> > project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that
> is
> > largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
> > informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc.
> and
> > likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
> > instance.)
> >
> > In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
> > determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a
> number
> > of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go
> back
> > to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least
> 4-5
> > new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5
> new
> > committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release
> out,
> > clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at
> the
> > ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
> > sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
> > release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene
> simply
> > because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC
> who
> > can verify the release is viable.)
> >
> > I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it
> is
> > part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but
> beyond
> > that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
> > needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best
> of
> > luck in keeping the project alive.
> >
> > -Grant
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we
> can't
> >> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> -- George
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> >> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
> >> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >> 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=
> >>
> >
> > --------------------------
> > Grant Ingersoll
> > http://www.lucidimagination.com
> >
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>
> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>
>
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:52 AM, George Aroush wrote:

> Hi Grant,
> 
> I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
> re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
> so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with Lucene.Net
> and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers?  What
> criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in 3-6
> months add / remove from the list?

Here's the current list:
George Aroush george @ aroush.net
Işık YİĞİT (DIGY) digydigy @ gmail.com 
Doug Sale dsale @ myspace-inc.com 
Michael Garski mgarski @ myspace-inc.com

Seeing how Doug, Isik and Michael haven't responded, you might want to track them down.  I think it is fine to see if they still want to participate, but I'd look for other people who want to volunteer too.  I'd simply solicit names and add them to the Wiki proposal.  I don't think there is any requirement beyond that for incubation.  What the project needs right now is people who are willing to step up and act now.


> 
> Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing so
> it gets some extra visibility.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- George
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> 
> 
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
> 
>> Hi Grant and all,
>> 
>> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
> of
>> the year, we must:
>> 
>> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
>> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
>> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
>> 
>> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
>> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
> 
> Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood contributing
> to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
> this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, i.e.
> to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or something
> like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
> name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by a
> PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
> project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that is
> largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
> informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. and
> likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
> instance.)   
> 
> In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
> determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a number
> of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go back
> to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 4-5
> new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 new
> committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release out,
> clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at the
> ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
> sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
> release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene simply
> because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC who
> can verify the release is viable.)  
> 
> I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it is
> part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but beyond
> that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
> needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best of
> luck in keeping the project alive.
> 
> -Grant
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
>> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> -- George
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> 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=
>> 
> 
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
> 

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com/

Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
http://www.lucidimagination.com/search

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Oct 30, 2010, at 2:56 PM, Simone Chiaretta wrote:

> Anyway, I think that the thing we have to do is try to keep the project
> alive under the current status:

I agree.

> I think a release and a site revamp are the things that has to be done.
> I'll be writing a blog post on my blog to try and raise awareness of this
> problem
> 
> Simone
> 
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
> simone.chiaretta@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Yeah, that's the problem: if we name it FASFPoL.NET (Former ASF Project of
>> Lucene.NET) nobody will know it's the same project.
>> 
>> I think that the name of NHibernate was owned by JBoss, but was given to
>> the community when the project was discontinued by them. if something like
>> this happens it would be kind if the ASF gives it to the community as well.
>> 
>> Simone
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Oct 30, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Personally I don't care if Lucene.net is part of the ASF, in the
>>> incubator
>>>> or hosted on CodePlex as standalone project, as long as there are
>>> releases,
>>>> and some committers are working on it.
>>>> Maybe Lucene.net could follow the same steps of NHibernate: it was just
>>> the
>>>> step-child of Hibernate, owned by the same "company" and later it
>>> evolved to
>>>> a project with its own dignity and ownership, implementing features that
>>>> didn't exist in the java version (like Linq and now ConfORM), and not
>>> just
>>>> doing line-by-line posting.
>>> 
>>> Just to be clear, the ASF owns the name Lucene.Net.  There is no
>>> Lucene.Net elsewhere.  The code can go elsewhere and the community can, but
>>> if you want to keep the name, it needs to be here.  It's perfectly
>>> acceptable, however, to name it something else.
>>> 
>>> -Grant
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Simone Chiaretta
>> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
>> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
>> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
>> twitter: @simonech
>> 
>> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
>> "Life is short, play hard"
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Simone Chiaretta
> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> twitter: @simonech
> 
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> "Life is short, play hard"

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>]

Anyway, I think that the thing we have to do is try to keep the project
alive under the current status:
I think a release and a site revamp are the things that has to be done.
I'll be writing a blog post on my blog to try and raise awareness of this
problem

Simone

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
simone.chiaretta@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, that's the problem: if we name it FASFPoL.NET (Former ASF Project of
> Lucene.NET) nobody will know it's the same project.
>
> I think that the name of NHibernate was owned by JBoss, but was given to
> the community when the project was discontinued by them. if something like
> this happens it would be kind if the ASF gives it to the community as well.
>
> Simone
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 30, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Personally I don't care if Lucene.net is part of the ASF, in the
>> incubator
>> > or hosted on CodePlex as standalone project, as long as there are
>> releases,
>> > and some committers are working on it.
>> > Maybe Lucene.net could follow the same steps of NHibernate: it was just
>> the
>> > step-child of Hibernate, owned by the same "company" and later it
>> evolved to
>> > a project with its own dignity and ownership, implementing features that
>> > didn't exist in the java version (like Linq and now ConfORM), and not
>> just
>> > doing line-by-line posting.
>>
>> Just to be clear, the ASF owns the name Lucene.Net.  There is no
>> Lucene.Net elsewhere.  The code can go elsewhere and the community can, but
>> if you want to keep the name, it needs to be here.  It's perfectly
>> acceptable, however, to name it something else.
>>
>> -Grant
>
>
>
>
> --
> Simone Chiaretta
> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> twitter: @simonech
>
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> "Life is short, play hard"
>



-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>]

Yeah, that's the problem: if we name it FASFPoL.NET (Former ASF Project of
Lucene.NET) nobody will know it's the same project.

I think that the name of NHibernate was owned by JBoss, but was given to the
community when the project was discontinued by them. if something like this
happens it would be kind if the ASF gives it to the community as well.

Simone

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>wrote:

>
> On Oct 30, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
>
> >
> > Personally I don't care if Lucene.net is part of the ASF, in the
> incubator
> > or hosted on CodePlex as standalone project, as long as there are
> releases,
> > and some committers are working on it.
> > Maybe Lucene.net could follow the same steps of NHibernate: it was just
> the
> > step-child of Hibernate, owned by the same "company" and later it evolved
> to
> > a project with its own dignity and ownership, implementing features that
> > didn't exist in the java version (like Linq and now ConfORM), and not
> just
> > doing line-by-line posting.
>
> Just to be clear, the ASF owns the name Lucene.Net.  There is no Lucene.Net
> elsewhere.  The code can go elsewhere and the community can, but if you want
> to keep the name, it needs to be here.  It's perfectly acceptable, however,
> to name it something else.
>
> -Grant




-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Oct 30, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Simone Chiaretta wrote:

> 
> Personally I don't care if Lucene.net is part of the ASF, in the incubator
> or hosted on CodePlex as standalone project, as long as there are releases,
> and some committers are working on it.
> Maybe Lucene.net could follow the same steps of NHibernate: it was just the
> step-child of Hibernate, owned by the same "company" and later it evolved to
> a project with its own dignity and ownership, implementing features that
> didn't exist in the java version (like Linq and now ConfORM), and not just
> doing line-by-line posting.

Just to be clear, the ASF owns the name Lucene.Net.  There is no Lucene.Net elsewhere.  The code can go elsewhere and the community can, but if you want to keep the name, it needs to be here.  It's perfectly acceptable, however, to name it something else.

-Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

It is great to see that there really is support.  It sounds to me like
Incubator to top-level is a great plan.

I am one of the Java crowd and thus would have a hard time convincing
anybody that I should have a vote on the
future of any .net project, but it really does seem that there is the core
of a great community here.

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Glyn Darkin <gl...@darkinsystems.com>wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> Loosing Lucene.Net would be a major loss to the .Net community.
>
> Count me in, I will help in any way I can. I have never supported an
> open source project before, so have a lot to learn, but just point me
> in the write direction and I will help.
>
> Cheers
>
> Glyn
>
>
> On 30 October 2010 18:56, Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I think that being not subscribed to the other mailing list probably my
> > email will end up only in the user ML.
> > Personally I think inside the ASF there is no awareness of how widespread
> is
> > Lucene.net in the .NET world:
> > It is used by many big projects, both opensource and commercial: for
> example
> > Raven DB, a commercial/opensource NoSQL database is using it as
> foundation.
> > Also Umbraco is using Lucene if I'm not wrong, and also Orchard and many
> > other are using it, including NHibernate.
> > And many big consulting companies are using it for their projects
> >
> > Personally I put Lucene.net into Subtext and developed a few PoC at the
> > company I'm working for at the moment, but nothing major.
> >
> > I wrote a series of posts on Lucene.net on my blog and many people were
> > wondering if the Lucene.net project was dead: this because there has not
> > been a real release since years.
> >
> > Personally I'd love to see Lucene.net a main project, not under the
> umbrella
> > of the Java version. And I'd also love to see it not just being a
> > line-by-line port of the Java version, but that it also adopts the same
> > conventions of .NET applications: in .NET there is are GetSize and
> SetSize
> > methods as in java, but there would be the Size property. And so on.
> >
> > Talking about the official release: I'm pretty sure that if you take the
> > 2.9.2 version and just make a binary release it will be good, since it is
> > used by some many people without problems. But I don't know which are the
> > requirements of the ASF for releasing official releases.
> >
> > Personally I don't care if Lucene.net is part of the ASF, in the
> incubator
> > or hosted on CodePlex as standalone project, as long as there are
> releases,
> > and some committers are working on it.
> > Maybe Lucene.net could follow the same steps of NHibernate: it was just
> the
> > step-child of Hibernate, owned by the same "company" and later it evolved
> to
> > a project with its own dignity and ownership, implementing features that
> > didn't exist in the java version (like Linq and now ConfORM), and not
> just
> > doing line-by-line posting.
> >
> > Personally I'm willing to help writing some documentation, but I don't
> have
> > the time to contribute on code as I'm already working on other opensource
> > project.
> >
> > Probably this is not the most coherent email I wrote, but I hope it has
> some
> > interesting points of discussion.
> >
> > HTH
> > Simone
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:52 PM, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Grant,
> >>
> >> I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
> >> re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we
> do
> >> so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with
> Lucene.Net
> >> and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers?
> >>  What
> >> criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in
> 3-6
> >> months add / remove from the list?
> >>
> >> Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing
> so
> >> it gets some extra visibility.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> -- George
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> >> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
> >> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >> Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Grant and all,
> >> >
> >> > I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the
> end
> >> of
> >> > the year, we must:
> >> >
> >> > 1) Clean up the website, and / or
> >> > 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
> >> > 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
> >> >
> >> > If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2,
> Lucene.Net
> >> > should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
> >>
> >> Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood
> contributing
> >> to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
> >> this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination,
> i.e.
> >> to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or
> >> something
> >> like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a
> new
> >> name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by
> a
> >> PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
> >> project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that
> is
> >> largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
> >> informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc.
> and
> >> likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
> >> instance.)
> >>
> >> In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
> >> determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a
> number
> >> of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go
> >> back
> >> to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least
> 4-5
> >> new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5
> new
> >> committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release
> out,
> >> clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at
> >> the
> >> ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
> >> sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
> >> release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene
> simply
> >> because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC
> >> who
> >> can verify the release is viable.)
> >>
> >> I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it
> is
> >> part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but
> beyond
> >> that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
> >> needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best
> of
> >> luck in keeping the project alive.
> >>
> >> -Grant
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The key for our success is for the community working together -- we
> can't
> >> > have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > -- George
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> >> > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
> >> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >> > Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >> > 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=
> >> >
> >>
> >> --------------------------
> >> Grant Ingersoll
> >> http://www.lucidimagination.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Simone Chiaretta
> > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > twitter: @simonech
> >
> > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> > "Life is short, play hard"
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Glyn Darkin
>
> Darkin Systems Ltd
> Mob: 07961815649
> Fax: 08717145065
> Web: www.darkinsystems.com
>
> Company No: 6173001
> VAT No: 906350835
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Glyn Darkin <gl...@darkinsystems.com>]

Hi Guys,

Loosing Lucene.Net would be a major loss to the .Net community.

Count me in, I will help in any way I can. I have never supported an
open source project before, so have a lot to learn, but just point me
in the write direction and I will help.

Cheers

Glyn


On 30 October 2010 18:56, Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that being not subscribed to the other mailing list probably my
> email will end up only in the user ML.
> Personally I think inside the ASF there is no awareness of how widespread is
> Lucene.net in the .NET world:
> It is used by many big projects, both opensource and commercial: for example
> Raven DB, a commercial/opensource NoSQL database is using it as foundation.
> Also Umbraco is using Lucene if I'm not wrong, and also Orchard and many
> other are using it, including NHibernate.
> And many big consulting companies are using it for their projects
>
> Personally I put Lucene.net into Subtext and developed a few PoC at the
> company I'm working for at the moment, but nothing major.
>
> I wrote a series of posts on Lucene.net on my blog and many people were
> wondering if the Lucene.net project was dead: this because there has not
> been a real release since years.
>
> Personally I'd love to see Lucene.net a main project, not under the umbrella
> of the Java version. And I'd also love to see it not just being a
> line-by-line port of the Java version, but that it also adopts the same
> conventions of .NET applications: in .NET there is are GetSize and SetSize
> methods as in java, but there would be the Size property. And so on.
>
> Talking about the official release: I'm pretty sure that if you take the
> 2.9.2 version and just make a binary release it will be good, since it is
> used by some many people without problems. But I don't know which are the
> requirements of the ASF for releasing official releases.
>
> Personally I don't care if Lucene.net is part of the ASF, in the incubator
> or hosted on CodePlex as standalone project, as long as there are releases,
> and some committers are working on it.
> Maybe Lucene.net could follow the same steps of NHibernate: it was just the
> step-child of Hibernate, owned by the same "company" and later it evolved to
> a project with its own dignity and ownership, implementing features that
> didn't exist in the java version (like Linq and now ConfORM), and not just
> doing line-by-line posting.
>
> Personally I'm willing to help writing some documentation, but I don't have
> the time to contribute on code as I'm already working on other opensource
> project.
>
> Probably this is not the most coherent email I wrote, but I hope it has some
> interesting points of discussion.
>
> HTH
> Simone
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:52 PM, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Grant,
>>
>> I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
>> re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
>> so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with Lucene.Net
>> and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers?
>>  What
>> criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in 3-6
>> months add / remove from the list?
>>
>> Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing so
>> it gets some extra visibility.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -- George
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Grant and all,
>> >
>> > I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
>> of
>> > the year, we must:
>> >
>> > 1) Clean up the website, and / or
>> > 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
>> > 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
>> >
>> > If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
>> > should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
>>
>> Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood contributing
>> to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
>> this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, i.e.
>> to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or
>> something
>> like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
>> name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by a
>> PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
>> project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that is
>> largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
>> informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. and
>> likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
>> instance.)
>>
>> In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
>> determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a number
>> of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go
>> back
>> to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 4-5
>> new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 new
>> committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release out,
>> clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at
>> the
>> ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
>> sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
>> release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene simply
>> because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC
>> who
>> can verify the release is viable.)
>>
>> I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it is
>> part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but beyond
>> that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
>> needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best of
>> luck in keeping the project alive.
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
>> > have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > -- George
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>> > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
>> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> > Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > 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=
>> >
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Grant Ingersoll
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Simone Chiaretta
> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> twitter: @simonech
>
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> "Life is short, play hard"
>



-- 
Glyn Darkin

Darkin Systems Ltd
Mob: 07961815649
Fax: 08717145065
Web: www.darkinsystems.com

Company No: 6173001
VAT No: 906350835

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Glyn Darkin <gl...@darkinsystems.com>]

Hi Guys,

Loosing Lucene.Net would be a major loss to the .Net community.

Count me in, I will help in any way I can. I have never supported an
open source project before, so have a lot to learn, but just point me
in the write direction and I will help.

Cheers

Glyn


On 30 October 2010 18:56, Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that being not subscribed to the other mailing list probably my
> email will end up only in the user ML.
> Personally I think inside the ASF there is no awareness of how widespread is
> Lucene.net in the .NET world:
> It is used by many big projects, both opensource and commercial: for example
> Raven DB, a commercial/opensource NoSQL database is using it as foundation.
> Also Umbraco is using Lucene if I'm not wrong, and also Orchard and many
> other are using it, including NHibernate.
> And many big consulting companies are using it for their projects
>
> Personally I put Lucene.net into Subtext and developed a few PoC at the
> company I'm working for at the moment, but nothing major.
>
> I wrote a series of posts on Lucene.net on my blog and many people were
> wondering if the Lucene.net project was dead: this because there has not
> been a real release since years.
>
> Personally I'd love to see Lucene.net a main project, not under the umbrella
> of the Java version. And I'd also love to see it not just being a
> line-by-line port of the Java version, but that it also adopts the same
> conventions of .NET applications: in .NET there is are GetSize and SetSize
> methods as in java, but there would be the Size property. And so on.
>
> Talking about the official release: I'm pretty sure that if you take the
> 2.9.2 version and just make a binary release it will be good, since it is
> used by some many people without problems. But I don't know which are the
> requirements of the ASF for releasing official releases.
>
> Personally I don't care if Lucene.net is part of the ASF, in the incubator
> or hosted on CodePlex as standalone project, as long as there are releases,
> and some committers are working on it.
> Maybe Lucene.net could follow the same steps of NHibernate: it was just the
> step-child of Hibernate, owned by the same "company" and later it evolved to
> a project with its own dignity and ownership, implementing features that
> didn't exist in the java version (like Linq and now ConfORM), and not just
> doing line-by-line posting.
>
> Personally I'm willing to help writing some documentation, but I don't have
> the time to contribute on code as I'm already working on other opensource
> project.
>
> Probably this is not the most coherent email I wrote, but I hope it has some
> interesting points of discussion.
>
> HTH
> Simone
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:52 PM, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Grant,
>>
>> I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
>> re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
>> so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with Lucene.Net
>> and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers?
>>  What
>> criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in 3-6
>> months add / remove from the list?
>>
>> Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing so
>> it gets some extra visibility.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -- George
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Grant and all,
>> >
>> > I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
>> of
>> > the year, we must:
>> >
>> > 1) Clean up the website, and / or
>> > 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
>> > 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
>> >
>> > If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
>> > should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
>>
>> Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood contributing
>> to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
>> this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, i.e.
>> to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or
>> something
>> like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
>> name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by a
>> PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
>> project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that is
>> largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
>> informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. and
>> likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
>> instance.)
>>
>> In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
>> determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a number
>> of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go
>> back
>> to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 4-5
>> new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 new
>> committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release out,
>> clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at
>> the
>> ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
>> sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
>> release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene simply
>> because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC
>> who
>> can verify the release is viable.)
>>
>> I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it is
>> part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but beyond
>> that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
>> needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best of
>> luck in keeping the project alive.
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
>> > have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > -- George
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>> > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
>> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> > Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > 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=
>> >
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Grant Ingersoll
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Simone Chiaretta
> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> twitter: @simonech
>
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> "Life is short, play hard"
>



-- 
Glyn Darkin

Darkin Systems Ltd
Mob: 07961815649
Fax: 08717145065
Web: www.darkinsystems.com

Company No: 6173001
VAT No: 906350835

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Oct 30, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Simone Chiaretta wrote:

> 
> Personally I don't care if Lucene.net is part of the ASF, in the incubator
> or hosted on CodePlex as standalone project, as long as there are releases,
> and some committers are working on it.
> Maybe Lucene.net could follow the same steps of NHibernate: it was just the
> step-child of Hibernate, owned by the same "company" and later it evolved to
> a project with its own dignity and ownership, implementing features that
> didn't exist in the java version (like Linq and now ConfORM), and not just
> doing line-by-line posting.

Just to be clear, the ASF owns the name Lucene.Net.  There is no Lucene.Net elsewhere.  The code can go elsewhere and the community can, but if you want to keep the name, it needs to be here.  It's perfectly acceptable, however, to name it something else.

-Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Oct 30, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Simone Chiaretta wrote:

> 
> Personally I don't care if Lucene.net is part of the ASF, in the incubator
> or hosted on CodePlex as standalone project, as long as there are releases,
> and some committers are working on it.
> Maybe Lucene.net could follow the same steps of NHibernate: it was just the
> step-child of Hibernate, owned by the same "company" and later it evolved to
> a project with its own dignity and ownership, implementing features that
> didn't exist in the java version (like Linq and now ConfORM), and not just
> doing line-by-line posting.

Just to be clear, the ASF owns the name Lucene.Net.  There is no Lucene.Net elsewhere.  The code can go elsewhere and the community can, but if you want to keep the name, it needs to be here.  It's perfectly acceptable, however, to name it something else.

-Grant

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>]

I think that being not subscribed to the other mailing list probably my
email will end up only in the user ML.
Personally I think inside the ASF there is no awareness of how widespread is
Lucene.net in the .NET world:
It is used by many big projects, both opensource and commercial: for example
Raven DB, a commercial/opensource NoSQL database is using it as foundation.
Also Umbraco is using Lucene if I'm not wrong, and also Orchard and many
other are using it, including NHibernate.
And many big consulting companies are using it for their projects

Personally I put Lucene.net into Subtext and developed a few PoC at the
company I'm working for at the moment, but nothing major.

I wrote a series of posts on Lucene.net on my blog and many people were
wondering if the Lucene.net project was dead: this because there has not
been a real release since years.

Personally I'd love to see Lucene.net a main project, not under the umbrella
of the Java version. And I'd also love to see it not just being a
line-by-line port of the Java version, but that it also adopts the same
conventions of .NET applications: in .NET there is are GetSize and SetSize
methods as in java, but there would be the Size property. And so on.

Talking about the official release: I'm pretty sure that if you take the
2.9.2 version and just make a binary release it will be good, since it is
used by some many people without problems. But I don't know which are the
requirements of the ASF for releasing official releases.

Personally I don't care if Lucene.net is part of the ASF, in the incubator
or hosted on CodePlex as standalone project, as long as there are releases,
and some committers are working on it.
Maybe Lucene.net could follow the same steps of NHibernate: it was just the
step-child of Hibernate, owned by the same "company" and later it evolved to
a project with its own dignity and ownership, implementing features that
didn't exist in the java version (like Linq and now ConfORM), and not just
doing line-by-line posting.

Personally I'm willing to help writing some documentation, but I don't have
the time to contribute on code as I'm already working on other opensource
project.

Probably this is not the most coherent email I wrote, but I hope it has some
interesting points of discussion.

HTH
Simone


On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:52 PM, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:

> Hi Grant,
>
> I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
> re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
> so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with Lucene.Net
> and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers?
>  What
> criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in 3-6
> months add / remove from the list?
>
> Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing so
> it gets some extra visibility.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- George
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
>
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
>
> > Hi Grant and all,
> >
> > I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
> of
> > the year, we must:
> >
> > 1) Clean up the website, and / or
> > 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
> > 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
> >
> > If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
> > should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
>
> Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood contributing
> to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
> this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, i.e.
> to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or
> something
> like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
> name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by a
> PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
> project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that is
> largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
> informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. and
> likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
> instance.)
>
> In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
> determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a number
> of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go
> back
> to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 4-5
> new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 new
> committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release out,
> clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at
> the
> ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
> sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
> release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene simply
> because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC
> who
> can verify the release is viable.)
>
> I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it is
> part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but beyond
> that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
> needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best of
> luck in keeping the project alive.
>
> -Grant
>
>
>
> >
> > The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
> > have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- George
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > 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=
> >
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>


-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>]

I think that being not subscribed to the other mailing list probably my
email will end up only in the user ML.
Personally I think inside the ASF there is no awareness of how widespread is
Lucene.net in the .NET world:
It is used by many big projects, both opensource and commercial: for example
Raven DB, a commercial/opensource NoSQL database is using it as foundation.
Also Umbraco is using Lucene if I'm not wrong, and also Orchard and many
other are using it, including NHibernate.
And many big consulting companies are using it for their projects

Personally I put Lucene.net into Subtext and developed a few PoC at the
company I'm working for at the moment, but nothing major.

I wrote a series of posts on Lucene.net on my blog and many people were
wondering if the Lucene.net project was dead: this because there has not
been a real release since years.

Personally I'd love to see Lucene.net a main project, not under the umbrella
of the Java version. And I'd also love to see it not just being a
line-by-line port of the Java version, but that it also adopts the same
conventions of .NET applications: in .NET there is are GetSize and SetSize
methods as in java, but there would be the Size property. And so on.

Talking about the official release: I'm pretty sure that if you take the
2.9.2 version and just make a binary release it will be good, since it is
used by some many people without problems. But I don't know which are the
requirements of the ASF for releasing official releases.

Personally I don't care if Lucene.net is part of the ASF, in the incubator
or hosted on CodePlex as standalone project, as long as there are releases,
and some committers are working on it.
Maybe Lucene.net could follow the same steps of NHibernate: it was just the
step-child of Hibernate, owned by the same "company" and later it evolved to
a project with its own dignity and ownership, implementing features that
didn't exist in the java version (like Linq and now ConfORM), and not just
doing line-by-line posting.

Personally I'm willing to help writing some documentation, but I don't have
the time to contribute on code as I'm already working on other opensource
project.

Probably this is not the most coherent email I wrote, but I hope it has some
interesting points of discussion.

HTH
Simone


On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:52 PM, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:

> Hi Grant,
>
> I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
> re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
> so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with Lucene.Net
> and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers?
>  What
> criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in 3-6
> months add / remove from the list?
>
> Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing so
> it gets some extra visibility.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- George
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
>
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
>
> > Hi Grant and all,
> >
> > I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
> of
> > the year, we must:
> >
> > 1) Clean up the website, and / or
> > 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
> > 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
> >
> > If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
> > should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
>
> Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood contributing
> to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
> this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, i.e.
> to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or
> something
> like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
> name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by a
> PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
> project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that is
> largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
> informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. and
> likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
> instance.)
>
> In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
> determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a number
> of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go
> back
> to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 4-5
> new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 new
> committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release out,
> clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at
> the
> ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
> sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
> release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene simply
> because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC
> who
> can verify the release is viable.)
>
> I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it is
> part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but beyond
> that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
> needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best of
> luck in keeping the project alive.
>
> -Grant
>
>
>
> >
> > The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
> > have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- George
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > 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=
> >
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>


-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:52 AM, George Aroush wrote:

> Hi Grant,
> 
> I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
> re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
> so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with Lucene.Net
> and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers?  What
> criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in 3-6
> months add / remove from the list?

Here's the current list:
George Aroush george @ aroush.net
Işık YİĞİT (DIGY) digydigy @ gmail.com 
Doug Sale dsale @ myspace-inc.com 
Michael Garski mgarski @ myspace-inc.com

Seeing how Doug, Isik and Michael haven't responded, you might want to track them down.  I think it is fine to see if they still want to participate, but I'd look for other people who want to volunteer too.  I'd simply solicit names and add them to the Wiki proposal.  I don't think there is any requirement beyond that for incubation.  What the project needs right now is people who are willing to step up and act now.


> 
> Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing so
> it gets some extra visibility.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- George
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> 
> 
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
> 
>> Hi Grant and all,
>> 
>> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
> of
>> the year, we must:
>> 
>> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
>> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
>> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
>> 
>> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
>> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
> 
> Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood contributing
> to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
> this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, i.e.
> to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or something
> like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
> name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by a
> PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
> project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that is
> largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
> informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. and
> likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
> instance.)   
> 
> In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
> determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a number
> of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go back
> to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 4-5
> new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 new
> committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release out,
> clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at the
> ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
> sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
> release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene simply
> because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC who
> can verify the release is viable.)  
> 
> I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it is
> part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but beyond
> that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
> needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best of
> luck in keeping the project alive.
> 
> -Grant
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
>> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> -- George
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> 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=
>> 
> 
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
> 

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com/

Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
http://www.lucidimagination.com/search

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Oct 30, 2010, at 8:52 AM, George Aroush wrote:

> Hi Grant,
> 
> I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
> re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
> so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with Lucene.Net
> and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers?  What
> criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in 3-6
> months add / remove from the list?

Here's the current list:
George Aroush george @ aroush.net
Işık YİĞİT (DIGY) digydigy @ gmail.com 
Doug Sale dsale @ myspace-inc.com 
Michael Garski mgarski @ myspace-inc.com

Seeing how Doug, Isik and Michael haven't responded, you might want to track them down.  I think it is fine to see if they still want to participate, but I'd look for other people who want to volunteer too.  I'd simply solicit names and add them to the Wiki proposal.  I don't think there is any requirement beyond that for incubation.  What the project needs right now is people who are willing to step up and act now.


> 
> Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing so
> it gets some extra visibility.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- George
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> 
> 
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:
> 
>> Hi Grant and all,
>> 
>> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
> of
>> the year, we must:
>> 
>> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
>> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
>> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
>> 
>> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
>> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.
> 
> Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood contributing
> to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
> this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, i.e.
> to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or something
> like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
> name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by a
> PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
> project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that is
> largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
> informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. and
> likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
> instance.)   
> 
> In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
> determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a number
> of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go back
> to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 4-5
> new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 new
> committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release out,
> clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at the
> ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
> sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
> release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene simply
> because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC who
> can verify the release is viable.)  
> 
> I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it is
> part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but beyond
> that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
> needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best of
> luck in keeping the project alive.
> 
> -Grant
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
>> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> -- George
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> 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=
>> 
> 
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
> 

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com/

Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
http://www.lucidimagination.com/search

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>]

Hi Grant,

I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with Lucene.Net
and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers?  What
criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in 3-6
months add / remove from the list?

Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing so
it gets some extra visibility.

Thanks,

-- George

-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:

> Hi Grant and all,
> 
> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
of
> the year, we must:
> 
> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
> 
> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.

Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood contributing
to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, i.e.
to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or something
like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by a
PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that is
largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. and
likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
instance.)   

In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a number
of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go back
to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 4-5
new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 new
committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release out,
clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at the
ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene simply
because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC who
can verify the release is viable.)  

I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it is
part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but beyond
that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best of
luck in keeping the project alive.

-Grant



> 
> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- George
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> 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=
> 

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>]

Hi Grant,

I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with Lucene.Net
and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers?  What
criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in 3-6
months add / remove from the list?

Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing so
it gets some extra visibility.

Thanks,

-- George

-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:

> Hi Grant and all,
> 
> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
of
> the year, we must:
> 
> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
> 
> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.

Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood contributing
to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, i.e.
to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or something
like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by a
PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that is
largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. and
likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
instance.)   

In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a number
of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go back
to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 4-5
new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 new
committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release out,
clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at the
ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene simply
because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC who
can verify the release is viable.)  

I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it is
part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but beyond
that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best of
luck in keeping the project alive.

-Grant



> 
> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- George
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> 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=
> 

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>]

Hi Grant,

I'm perfectly fine going back to incubation, that will help us to
re-validate this project and hopefully bring in some new blood.  If we do
so, beside the current committers, who have had experience with Lucene.Net
and the Apache way, who else do we bring in as new initial committers?  What
criteria do we use?  Should we start with the current committers and in 3-6
months add / remove from the list?

Btw, sorry to post this to 3 different mailing list, but I hope by doing so
it gets some extra visibility.

Thanks,

-- George

-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:59 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: general@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status


On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:

> Hi Grant and all,
> 
> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end
of
> the year, we must:
> 
> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
> 
> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.

Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood contributing
to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around
this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, i.e.
to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or something
like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new
name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by a
PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the
project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that is
largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not
informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. and
likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for
instance.)   

In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self
determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a number
of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go back
to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 4-5
new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 new
committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release out,
clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at the
ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a
sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a
release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene simply
because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC who
can verify the release is viable.)  

I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it is
part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but beyond
that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there
needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best of
luck in keeping the project alive.

-Grant



> 
> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- George
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> 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=
> 

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:

> Hi Grant and all,
> 
> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end of
> the year, we must:
> 
> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
> 
> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.

Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood contributing to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, i.e. to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or something like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by a PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that is largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. and likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for instance.)   

In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a number of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go back to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 4-5 new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 new committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release out, clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at the ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene simply because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC who can verify the release is viable.)  

I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it is part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but beyond that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best of luck in keeping the project alive.

-Grant



> 
> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- George
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> 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=
> 

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:

> Hi Grant and all,
> 
> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end of
> the year, we must:
> 
> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
> 
> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.

Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood contributing to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, i.e. to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or something like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by a PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that is largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. and likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for instance.)   

In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a number of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go back to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 4-5 new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 new committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release out, clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at the ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene simply because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC who can verify the release is viable.)  

I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it is part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but beyond that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best of luck in keeping the project alive.

-Grant



> 
> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- George
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> 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=
> 

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:19 PM, George Aroush wrote:

> Hi Grant and all,
> 
> I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end of
> the year, we must:
> 
> 1) Clean up the website, and / or
> 2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
> 3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.
> 
> If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
> should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.

Please see the original email below.  You also need new blood contributing to the project.  One active committer for a project that has been around this long is not enough.  You also need a plan for self determination, i.e. to either become a top level project (i.e. lucenenet.apache.org or something like that) here at the ASF or for spinning out somewhere else under a new name.  This will be better for the project as you will then be guided by a PMC that is made up of the community members who have a stake in the project, as opposed to now where you have a PMC, other than George, that is largely unaware of Lucene.NET and has no stake in Lucene.NET and is not informed enough to make decisions about new committers, releases, etc. and likely isn't even capable of running Lucene.NET (I'm on a Mac, for instance.)   

In fact, if I were active in this community, I would put the self determination piece of the puzzle before all others because it has a number of effects that make 1, 2 and 3 easier for you.  Personally, I would go back to the Incubator with a proposal for re-entry there that adds at least 4-5 new committers based on volunteers stepping up here.  Once you have 4-5 new committers, then you have people who can do the work to get a release out, clean up the website and, most importantly, learn how developing code at the ASF works.  You also then have the genesis of a PMC that makes for a sustainable project and one where you can get 3 binding PMC votes for a release (which you may not be able to do at the moment under Lucene simply because other than George, there are not any .NET programmers on the PMC who can verify the release is viable.)  

I can help you craft the proposal to go into the Incubator, as I feel it is part of my duties as Chair to see some resolve on this project, but beyond that I personally am not interested in being involved.  I do think there needs to be a .NET version of Lucene, though, so I wish you all the best of luck in keeping the project alive.

-Grant



> 
> The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
> have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- George
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> 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=
> 

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>]

Hi Grant and all,

I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end of
the year, we must:

1) Clean up the website, and / or
2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.

If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.

The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.

Regards,

-- George


-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
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=

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Digy <di...@gmail.com>]

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.

DIGY



-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 11:48 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
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=

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Digy <di...@gmail.com>]

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.

DIGY



-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 11:48 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
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=

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>]

Hi Grant and all,

I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end of
the year, we must:

1) Clean up the website, and / or
2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.

If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.

The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.

Regards,

-- George


-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
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=

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Glyn Darkin <gl...@darkinsystems.com>]

Search is a really complicated subject matter and I think it would be best to leave that part to the experts, e.g. The Java community who build & manage Lucene.

However, I do think that there is a place for a Lucene.Net Contrib project, where we as the .Net community can build on, and expand Lucene.Net, bringing all the great things that .Net has and filling in some of the blanks that are offered as part of a full blown search platform.

A few example projects could be 

LINQ to Lucene 
Azure Directory
A Lucene WCF Service Host for Indexing & searching
NHibernate Search
Entity Framework Search
Mongo Search
Facets
Business Rules framework
Better "Did you  mean?"
Add "Auto Correction"

Cheers

Glyn










On 1 Nov 2010, at 11:30, Robert Jordan wrote:

> On 01.11.2010 10:57, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene
> with a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
> 
>> 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
> 
> I fail to see any need for .NET 4 or even .NET 3.5. There is only
> one case where .NET 4 could be useful and a couple of other
> cases for .NET 3.5.
> 
> Not chasing .NET versions is definitely not the reason why
> Lucene.NET is going back in incubation.
> 
> The real reason was pointed out by DIGI: no one stepped out
> for the "dully" work: prepare/publish official releases,
> home page love, interact with the Board, etc.
> 
>> I wouldn't want to be involved in a project that chased Lucene's tail
>> forever.
> 
> This is Lucene.NET's goal.
> 
> Robert
> 

Glyn Darkin

Darkin Systems Ltd
Mob: 07961815649
Fax: 08717145065
Web: www.darkinsystems.com

Company No: 6173001
VAT No: 906350835

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Heath Aldrich <ha...@aes2.com>]

I support the line-by-line port concept.
Unless anyone here is a real search expert, than doing anything else is just going to cause people to orphan the project.  Doing the line-by-line port, we get to have the advantage of the 'experts' on the java side who are really doing the heavy lifting.

In addition, how many books have you seen on Lucene.Net?  
If we went away from the java port, then we would lose the benefit of books/examples from the java side.

I agree that it ought to be brought up to a  VS2010 project... however .net 2 vs 3.5 vs 4 isn't all that relevant unless it is causing a problem.  If so, then feel free to grab the code and make .net 4 dependent version for your own use.

I see no problem with having it on .net 2 until there is a compelling reason to move forward.
This makes it more compatible with a more broad set of users and I think that is a good thing.

If you notice, there apparently isn't a huge community interested in doing the work to make a full .net based search system on its own.  I'm not aware of other viable .net search engines (open source) that I could use to replace Lucene.
I suspect this is because the understanding and knowledge required to pull off such a task is significant.  I don't see what it would make sense to recreate the wheel... the java lucene community has done an awesome job on that part, why would we not take advantage of that?


Heath

-----Original Message-----
From: Ciaran Roarty [mailto:ciaran.roarty@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 9:25 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org; general@commons.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

>
> Well, your opinion is diametrically opposed to Lucene.NET's project 
> goals...
>
>
Perhaps but are those goals still valid?

Unless I've missed something the project is in danger of shutting down; maybe a re-imagining of the project is required?

Ciaran


On 1 November 2010 14:07, Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net> wrote:

> On 01.11.2010 12:38, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>
>> A simple port could be achieved using IKVM, could it not? ( 
>> http://www.ikvm.net/ )
>>
>
> Feel free to try it out if you're fine with adding yet another layer 
> to your .NET apps.
>
> For each binary translator + runtime out there, I'd rather run a 
> native port.
>
>
> If so, what's the point of Lucene.NET?
>>
>
> See the first paragraph of http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/
>
>
> I don't feel I am missing the point, I feel I am expressing an opinion.
>>
>
> Well, your opinion is diametrically opposed to Lucene.NET's project 
> goals...
>
> Robert
>
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>]

And I'd add, make the API comfortable for .NET devs (generics, lamba,
delegates, properties and so on)

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Arne Claassen <ar...@mindtouch.com> wrote:

> True. I should qualify that with "try to maintain parity in the logic bits,
> but use the the most appropriate framework facilities where it touches I/O
> or BCL types"
>
>
> Arne Claassen
>
> MindTouch
> San Diego, CA
> http://twitter.com/sdether
>
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Josh Handel wrote:
>
>  I would say that's absolutely true within reason.. I know I was bit by
>> some buffer and IO type issues that were specific to the .NET framework and
>> introduced by being so rigid with the line by line translation.. I think a
>> architecture and conceptual port would provide a more performt and
>> understandable engine (even inside the crown jewels) than a line by line
>> port..  If we are talking making a better product, lets not cut off our .NET
>> noses to honor the projects Java roots..
>>
>> Josh
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Arne Claassen [mailto:arnec@mindtouch.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:30 PM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>
>> I agree with Jordan. I think keeping the internals closer to java is going
>> to help picking up the advancements on the other side of the fence. It's the
>> public facing API that would benefit from a more C# API if anything.
>>
>> Arne Claassen
>>
>> MindTouch
>> San Diego, CA
>> http://twitter.com/sdether
>>
>> On Nov 1, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Robert Jordan wrote:
>>
>>  On 01.11.2010 19:04, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the API was kept as-is then the Lucene in Action examples would be
>>>> correct.
>>>>
>>>> There are obvious correlations with Mono in this regard.
>>>>
>>>
>>> With all due respect, where is the point of porting Lucene's internals
>>> to something more .NET-like while keeping the same external API?
>>> What's wrong with Lucene's internals, the "crown jewels" that makes
>>> Lucene.NET's efforts worthwhile?
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> C
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1 Nov 2010, at 16:34, Robert Jordan<ro...@gmx.net>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  On 01.11.2010 15:50, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I think it will die.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ask Digy, George, Doug, and Michael how they feel about working
>>>>>> hard to port the current source and get continually hit with
>>>>>> questions on the mailing list that a quick search ( no pun intended
>>>>>> ) could have resolved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And a new incompatible Lucene.NET would not raise any questions?
>>>>>
>>>>> You won't be even able to point them to something like "Lucene in
>>>>> Action" because there will be no book about "Lucene.NET done right"
>>>>> for at least a decade.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Mono doesn't port from .NET but they do match the API.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I fail to see any similarity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Arne Claassen <ar...@mindtouch.com>]

True. I should qualify that with "try to maintain parity in the logic  
bits, but use the the most appropriate framework facilities where it  
touches I/O or BCL types"

Arne Claassen

MindTouch
San Diego, CA
http://twitter.com/sdether

On Nov 1, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Josh Handel wrote:

> I would say that's absolutely true within reason.. I know I was bit  
> by some buffer and IO type issues that were specific to the .NET  
> framework and introduced by being so rigid with the line by line  
> translation.. I think a architecture and conceptual port would  
> provide a more performt and understandable engine (even inside the  
> crown jewels) than a line by line port..  If we are talking making a  
> better product, lets not cut off our .NET noses to honor the  
> projects Java roots..
>
> Josh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arne Claassen [mailto:arnec@mindtouch.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:30 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> I agree with Jordan. I think keeping the internals closer to java is  
> going to help picking up the advancements on the other side of the  
> fence. It's the public facing API that would benefit from a more C#  
> API if anything.
>
> Arne Claassen
>
> MindTouch
> San Diego, CA
> http://twitter.com/sdether
>
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Robert Jordan wrote:
>
>> On 01.11.2010 19:04, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>>> If the API was kept as-is then the Lucene in Action examples would  
>>> be
>>> correct.
>>>
>>> There are obvious correlations with Mono in this regard.
>>
>> With all due respect, where is the point of porting Lucene's  
>> internals
>> to something more .NET-like while keeping the same external API?
>> What's wrong with Lucene's internals, the "crown jewels" that makes
>> Lucene.NET's efforts worthwhile?
>>
>> Robert
>>
>>
>>>
>>> C
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1 Nov 2010, at 16:34, Robert Jordan<ro...@gmx.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01.11.2010 15:50, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>>>>> Then I think it will die.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ask Digy, George, Doug, and Michael how they feel about working
>>>>> hard to port the current source and get continually hit with
>>>>> questions on the mailing list that a quick search ( no pun  
>>>>> intended
>>>>> ) could have resolved.
>>>>
>>>> And a new incompatible Lucene.NET would not raise any questions?
>>>>
>>>> You won't be even able to point them to something like "Lucene in
>>>> Action" because there will be no book about "Lucene.NET done right"
>>>> for at least a decade.
>>>>
>>>>> Mono doesn't port from .NET but they do match the API.
>>>>
>>>> I fail to see any similarity.
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Josh Handel <Jo...@catapultsystems.com>]

I know in the situation I am most heavily using Lucene right now 5% might actually be noticeable and require a bit of a rearchitecture (100,000,000 documents being searched about 600 x per second per node, with 4 nodes running).. 

I like the idea of finding a porting process that gets us to a "cleanup" stage... If our Unit tests are solid, we could do a multi-phase port, where we start by having one or few users do the port and get it compiling. Then the community committers can take on getting the build to pass the tests... it would make for a clean spot in the process where lots of committers can get involved as a single committer can take on just a few test cases relatively easily..

Just a thought.
Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Merkl [mailto:hm@hmerkl.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 10:48 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; JBeaulac@versacom.ca
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

Jean-Francois,

As far as I understand the main concern is that IKVM doesn't use the .NET classes for I/O and collections but creates its own. Maybe we could provide some wrappers or helper methods around those to make work easier. A 5% performance hit sounds acceptable to me.

I don't know how the Java code gets ported to C# at the moment, but if it's not done automatically it seems a lot of work and the project will always be behind. Maybe that effort could be put into making IKVM better?

IKVM appeals to me because we would always have the latest Lucene version and could also use a lot of the Java code for Lucene that's available. There are quite a few interesting components like analyzers that are available in Java but not .NET.

Hans



On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:30, Jean-François Beaulac <JB...@versacom.ca>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We recently tried it in our app, everything works fine but we measured 
> a ~5% performance hit and slightly more RAM usage.
>
> But for the reasons stated in the threads linked by Digy, I don't 
> believe it would be a viable solution for the future of the Lucene.Net project.
>
> ---
> Jean-Francois Beaulac
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Hans Merkl [mailto:hm@hmerkl.com] Envoyé : November 2, 2010 10:59 
> AM À : lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org Objet : Re: Lucene.NET 
> Community Status
>
> Has anybody tried using Lucene with IKVM.NET? I haven't tried it 
> myself
> (yet) but I keep hearing it works pretty well. That way, there would 
> ne no need for porting the actual code, instead you just convert the 
> Java executables to .NET. If it works, it seems a much faster approach 
> than porting the source code.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 09:55, Wyatt Barnett <wy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Not sure if this is the right way to volunteer, but I've got limited 
> > experience with Lucene but it has been the best thing since sliced 
> > bread to me and I'd love to contribute to the project in any way I 
> > can.
> >
> > I'll also add that I've been running a home-compiled version of the
> > 2.9.2 branch in production for the last few months with no problems, 
> > so I think it wouldn't take much to push that as a new binary release.
> >
> > While I've got the floor, I'm also definitely down with the 
> > suggestion for a .NET ethos friendly wrapper -- could help the cause 
> > quite a bit by making this much more approachable for the rest of the .NET world.
> >
>
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Glyn Darkin <gl...@darkinsystems.com>]

I second everything Nic has said.


On 2 Nov 2010, at 17:35, Nic Wise wrote:

> Hi there everyone
> 
> Just throwing my 5c in the ring (again). Not sure how much use this is
> going to be, but it might be.... ignore freely :)
> 
> I've used Lucene since v1 (Java) and Lucene.Net since v1.something (I
> think) in various projects. Actually, in any project I can get it into
> :) Quest Archive Manager (then called AfterMail) was the first one in
> .NET (which Quest bought for about $40m, not from me sadly).
> www.topgear.com (search and related items calculations), ComArchive
> (who I'm working with these days), and a few other places. At a guess,
> annual revenue from projects _I've_ worked on which use Lucene.Net as
> a core component: $10m+/year. And I'm just one person.
> 
> BTW, most of the indexes I've worked with are in the 100's of GB's
> range. It's performed amazingly. I'm not going to count Umbraco, which
> I've been working on of late, as it's kinda invisible in there. And
> thats part of the problem I think.
> 
> The biggest "problems" I've had with Lucene.Net are two things:
> 
> 1. The code is dense and very complex. I'm not a search theorist, so a
> lot of it - even just the terms - makes no sense to me at all. The API
> is fine, but once I try to dig into it, I get lost in a maze of term
> vectors and other stuff. Not L.N's fault - or the porters - it's just
> a complex piece of software! I never thought to contribute because,
> basically, it was like looking into a big black hole.
> 
> 2. For me, it's been stable. VERY VERY stable. Like my Mac, it "just
> works". I've had a few problems from time to time (eg trying to do
> multithreaded access with v1.x :) ), and I've had to rebuild a few of
> those huge indexes (queue a week's downtime for a client), but 99% of
> the time (in production anyway), it's been prefect. So I've not
> thought to contribute, because I didn't have an itch to scratch. I
> know one of my co-workers has, and I think he's sent in patches (or
> worked closely with the maintainers), but generally, it's been a
> highly functional, highly stable black box.
> 
> 3. The website (well, the incubator one). I find it impossible to find
> anything, impossible to find news (why is there no official release?
> oh, _thats_ why... etc (or not)) etc. I find this true of all the
> apache sites/projects I've used or tried to use, so this is not a
> lucene thing. Maybe I was just looking in the wrong place, or I dont
> get the way the pages are structured, but thats how it is for me. This
> would be the area I'd be looking at once I get back from being away
> (mid-February) unless someone else has done it.
> 
> So, once I get back, I'm going to do something about 3. Maybe the
> solution to 1 and 2 is to get a port, ala NGit (ie using something
> like Sharpen), working 95% automatically, making each Java release 1-2
> weeks work, not 3+ months. That might require changes to Sharpen, but
> if we start with the code from the NGit guy, it might help a lot.
> 
> Once thats there, with passing tests etc, then build a .NET-style
> layer on top for those who need it or want it, and so one team/person
> can port the java, while others maintain the layer (ala NANT +
> Nant.contrib)
> 
> Righto. Thought over.
> 
> :)
> 
> Nic

Glyn Darkin

Darkin Systems Ltd
Mob: 07961815649
Fax: 08717145065
Web: www.darkinsystems.com

Company No: 6173001
VAT No: 906350835

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Nic Wise <ni...@fastchicken.co.nz>]

Hi there everyone

Just throwing my 5c in the ring (again). Not sure how much use this is
going to be, but it might be.... ignore freely :)

I've used Lucene since v1 (Java) and Lucene.Net since v1.something (I
think) in various projects. Actually, in any project I can get it into
:) Quest Archive Manager (then called AfterMail) was the first one in
.NET (which Quest bought for about $40m, not from me sadly).
www.topgear.com (search and related items calculations), ComArchive
(who I'm working with these days), and a few other places. At a guess,
annual revenue from projects _I've_ worked on which use Lucene.Net as
a core component: $10m+/year. And I'm just one person.

BTW, most of the indexes I've worked with are in the 100's of GB's
range. It's performed amazingly. I'm not going to count Umbraco, which
I've been working on of late, as it's kinda invisible in there. And
thats part of the problem I think.

The biggest "problems" I've had with Lucene.Net are two things:

1. The code is dense and very complex. I'm not a search theorist, so a
lot of it - even just the terms - makes no sense to me at all. The API
is fine, but once I try to dig into it, I get lost in a maze of term
vectors and other stuff. Not L.N's fault - or the porters - it's just
a complex piece of software! I never thought to contribute because,
basically, it was like looking into a big black hole.

2. For me, it's been stable. VERY VERY stable. Like my Mac, it "just
works". I've had a few problems from time to time (eg trying to do
multithreaded access with v1.x :) ), and I've had to rebuild a few of
those huge indexes (queue a week's downtime for a client), but 99% of
the time (in production anyway), it's been prefect. So I've not
thought to contribute, because I didn't have an itch to scratch. I
know one of my co-workers has, and I think he's sent in patches (or
worked closely with the maintainers), but generally, it's been a
highly functional, highly stable black box.

3. The website (well, the incubator one). I find it impossible to find
anything, impossible to find news (why is there no official release?
oh, _thats_ why... etc (or not)) etc. I find this true of all the
apache sites/projects I've used or tried to use, so this is not a
lucene thing. Maybe I was just looking in the wrong place, or I dont
get the way the pages are structured, but thats how it is for me. This
would be the area I'd be looking at once I get back from being away
(mid-February) unless someone else has done it.

So, once I get back, I'm going to do something about 3. Maybe the
solution to 1 and 2 is to get a port, ala NGit (ie using something
like Sharpen), working 95% automatically, making each Java release 1-2
weeks work, not 3+ months. That might require changes to Sharpen, but
if we start with the code from the NGit guy, it might help a lot.

Once thats there, with passing tests etc, then build a .NET-style
layer on top for those who need it or want it, and so one team/person
can port the java, while others maintain the layer (ala NANT +
Nant.contrib)

Righto. Thought over.

:)

Nic

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Hans Merkl <hm...@hmerkl.com>]

Jean-Francois,

As far as I understand the main concern is that IKVM doesn't use the .NET
classes for I/O and collections but creates its own. Maybe we could provide
some wrappers or helper methods around those to make work easier. A 5%
performance hit sounds acceptable to me.

I don't know how the Java code gets ported to C# at the moment, but if it's
not done automatically it seems a lot of work and the project will always be
behind. Maybe that effort could be put into making IKVM better?

IKVM appeals to me because we would always have the latest Lucene version
and could also use a lot of the Java code for Lucene that's available. There
are quite a few interesting components like analyzers that are available in
Java but not .NET.

Hans



On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:30, Jean-François Beaulac <JB...@versacom.ca>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We recently tried it in our app, everything works fine but we measured a
> ~5% performance hit and slightly more RAM usage.
>
> But for the reasons stated in the threads linked by Digy, I don't believe
> it would be a viable solution for the future of the Lucene.Net project.
>
> ---
> Jean-Francois Beaulac
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Hans Merkl [mailto:hm@hmerkl.com]
> Envoyé : November 2, 2010 10:59 AM
> À : lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Objet : Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Has anybody tried using Lucene with IKVM.NET? I haven't tried it myself
> (yet) but I keep hearing it works pretty well. That way, there would ne no
> need for porting the actual code, instead you just convert the Java
> executables to .NET. If it works, it seems a much faster approach than
> porting the source code.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 09:55, Wyatt Barnett <wy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Not sure if this is the right way to volunteer, but I've got limited
> > experience with Lucene but it has been the best thing since sliced
> > bread to me and I'd love to contribute to the project in any way I
> > can.
> >
> > I'll also add that I've been running a home-compiled version of the
> > 2.9.2 branch in production for the last few months with no problems,
> > so I think it wouldn't take much to push that as a new binary release.
> >
> > While I've got the floor, I'm also definitely down with the suggestion
> > for a .NET ethos friendly wrapper -- could help the cause quite a bit
> > by making this much more approachable for the rest of the .NET world.
> >
>
>

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Jean-François Beaulac <JB...@versacom.ca>]

Hi,

We recently tried it in our app, everything works fine but we measured a ~5% performance hit and slightly more RAM usage.

But for the reasons stated in the threads linked by Digy, I don't believe it would be a viable solution for the future of the Lucene.Net project.

---
Jean-Francois Beaulac

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Hans Merkl [mailto:hm@hmerkl.com] 
Envoyé : November 2, 2010 10:59 AM
À : lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Objet : Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

Has anybody tried using Lucene with IKVM.NET? I haven't tried it myself
(yet) but I keep hearing it works pretty well. That way, there would ne no
need for porting the actual code, instead you just convert the Java
executables to .NET. If it works, it seems a much faster approach than
porting the source code.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 09:55, Wyatt Barnett <wy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not sure if this is the right way to volunteer, but I've got limited
> experience with Lucene but it has been the best thing since sliced
> bread to me and I'd love to contribute to the project in any way I
> can.
>
> I'll also add that I've been running a home-compiled version of the
> 2.9.2 branch in production for the last few months with no problems,
> so I think it wouldn't take much to push that as a new binary release.
>
> While I've got the floor, I'm also definitely down with the suggestion
> for a .NET ethos friendly wrapper -- could help the cause quite a bit
> by making this much more approachable for the rest of the .NET world.
>

AW: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Andreas Mummenhoff <an...@online.de>]

I think IKVM already is a way, it's already working, so everybody can
download IKVM and use it together with Lucene. 
But there is still a big need for Lucene.Net, it's a big difference if you
have a native solution or a "monster" with foreign classes, because the
whole java-runtime is also translated to IL.

We should continue working on the automated way, has anybody tried the
others,

http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx,

and 

http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/

?

If I investigate my results further, I can find the following:

A) TODO TASK	Anonymous inner classes are not converted to .NET:
52
52 cases, to much - has somebody an idea? Maybe something with private
classes and auto generated class names?


B) TODO TASK	C# does not allow fall-through from a non-empty 'case':
1
one case, manual correction is easy


C) TODO TASK	Enums cannot contain methods in .NET:
1
one case, manual correction is easy


D) TODO TASK	Interfaces cannot contain fields in .NET:
54
too much, should be converted to abstract classes


E) TODO TASK	Interfaces cannot contain types in .NET:
10
same as D)


F) TODO TASK	Java wildcard generics are not converted to .NET:
29
too much, no idea


G) TODO TASK	Local classes are not converted by Java to VB & C#
Converter:		2
maybe same solution as A)?


H) TODO TASK	Most Java annotations will not have direct .NET equivalent
attributes:	12
no idea, but 12 cases are not so much


I) TODO TASK	Octal literals cannot be represented in C#:
13
easy to translate manually


J) TODO TASK	The following line could not be converted:
1
only one case


K) TODO TASK	There is no .NET Dictionary equivalent to the Java
'entrySet' method:	18
provide a custom Dictionary class


L) TODO TASK	There is no .NET Dictionary equivalent to the Java 'putAll'
method:	4
same as K)


M) TODO TASK	There is no .NET LinkedList equivalent to the Java 'remove'
method:	1
same as K)


N) TODO TASK	There is no '>>>' operator in .NET:
25
no idea,


O) WARNING	'final' parameters are not allowed in .NET:
155
can be ignored


P) WARNING	Method 'throws' clauses are not available in .NET:
1266
can be ignored


Q) WARNING	The original Java variable was marked 'final':
653
can be ignored


R) WARNING	Unlike Java's ListIterator, enumerators in .NET do not allow
altering the collection:	2.
only 2 cases


I think there is hope to solve most things in one or the other way, so that
maybe 1 week work is left after the automatic conversion. This should be a
great win.





-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: digy digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. November 2010 16:13
An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

See previous discussions about IKVM

http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.lucene.net.user/806
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.lucene.net.user/802

DIGY

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Hans Merkl <hm...@hmerkl.com> wrote:

> Has anybody tried using Lucene with IKVM.NET? I haven't tried it myself
> (yet) but I keep hearing it works pretty well. That way, there would ne no
> need for porting the actual code, instead you just convert the Java
> executables to .NET. If it works, it seems a much faster approach than
> porting the source code.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 09:55, Wyatt Barnett <wy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Not sure if this is the right way to volunteer, but I've got limited
> > experience with Lucene but it has been the best thing since sliced
> > bread to me and I'd love to contribute to the project in any way I
> > can.
> >
> > I'll also add that I've been running a home-compiled version of the
> > 2.9.2 branch in production for the last few months with no problems,
> > so I think it wouldn't take much to push that as a new binary release.
> >
> > While I've got the floor, I'm also definitely down with the suggestion
> > for a .NET ethos friendly wrapper -- could help the cause quite a bit
> > by making this much more approachable for the rest of the .NET world.
> >
>

AW: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Andreas Mummenhoff <an...@online.de>]

I think IKVM already is a way, it's already working, so everybody can
download IKVM and use it together with Lucene. 
But there is still a big need for Lucene.Net, it's a big difference if you
have a native solution or a "monster" with foreign classes, because the
whole java-runtime is also translated to IL.

We should continue working on the automated way, has anybody tried the
others,

http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx,

and 

http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/

?

If I investigate my results further, I can find the following:

A) TODO TASK	Anonymous inner classes are not converted to .NET:
52
52 cases, to much - has somebody an idea? Maybe something with private
classes and auto generated class names?


B) TODO TASK	C# does not allow fall-through from a non-empty 'case':
1
one case, manual correction is easy


C) TODO TASK	Enums cannot contain methods in .NET:
1
one case, manual correction is easy


D) TODO TASK	Interfaces cannot contain fields in .NET:
54
too much, should be converted to abstract classes


E) TODO TASK	Interfaces cannot contain types in .NET:
10
same as D)


F) TODO TASK	Java wildcard generics are not converted to .NET:
29
too much, no idea


G) TODO TASK	Local classes are not converted by Java to VB & C#
Converter:		2
maybe same solution as A)?


H) TODO TASK	Most Java annotations will not have direct .NET equivalent
attributes:	12
no idea, but 12 cases are not so much


I) TODO TASK	Octal literals cannot be represented in C#:
13
easy to translate manually


J) TODO TASK	The following line could not be converted:
1
only one case


K) TODO TASK	There is no .NET Dictionary equivalent to the Java
'entrySet' method:	18
provide a custom Dictionary class


L) TODO TASK	There is no .NET Dictionary equivalent to the Java 'putAll'
method:	4
same as K)


M) TODO TASK	There is no .NET LinkedList equivalent to the Java 'remove'
method:	1
same as K)


N) TODO TASK	There is no '>>>' operator in .NET:
25
no idea,


O) WARNING	'final' parameters are not allowed in .NET:
155
can be ignored


P) WARNING	Method 'throws' clauses are not available in .NET:
1266
can be ignored


Q) WARNING	The original Java variable was marked 'final':
653
can be ignored


R) WARNING	Unlike Java's ListIterator, enumerators in .NET do not allow
altering the collection:	2.
only 2 cases


I think there is hope to solve most things in one or the other way, so that
maybe 1 week work is left after the automatic conversion. This should be a
great win.





-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: digy digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. November 2010 16:13
An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

See previous discussions about IKVM

http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.lucene.net.user/806
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.lucene.net.user/802

DIGY

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Hans Merkl <hm...@hmerkl.com> wrote:

> Has anybody tried using Lucene with IKVM.NET? I haven't tried it myself
> (yet) but I keep hearing it works pretty well. That way, there would ne no
> need for porting the actual code, instead you just convert the Java
> executables to .NET. If it works, it seems a much faster approach than
> porting the source code.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 09:55, Wyatt Barnett <wy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Not sure if this is the right way to volunteer, but I've got limited
> > experience with Lucene but it has been the best thing since sliced
> > bread to me and I'd love to contribute to the project in any way I
> > can.
> >
> > I'll also add that I've been running a home-compiled version of the
> > 2.9.2 branch in production for the last few months with no problems,
> > so I think it wouldn't take much to push that as a new binary release.
> >
> > While I've got the floor, I'm also definitely down with the suggestion
> > for a .NET ethos friendly wrapper -- could help the cause quite a bit
> > by making this much more approachable for the rest of the .NET world.
> >
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[digy digy <di...@gmail.com>]

See previous discussions about IKVM

http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.lucene.net.user/806
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.lucene.net.user/802

DIGY

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Hans Merkl <hm...@hmerkl.com> wrote:

> Has anybody tried using Lucene with IKVM.NET? I haven't tried it myself
> (yet) but I keep hearing it works pretty well. That way, there would ne no
> need for porting the actual code, instead you just convert the Java
> executables to .NET. If it works, it seems a much faster approach than
> porting the source code.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 09:55, Wyatt Barnett <wy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Not sure if this is the right way to volunteer, but I've got limited
> > experience with Lucene but it has been the best thing since sliced
> > bread to me and I'd love to contribute to the project in any way I
> > can.
> >
> > I'll also add that I've been running a home-compiled version of the
> > 2.9.2 branch in production for the last few months with no problems,
> > so I think it wouldn't take much to push that as a new binary release.
> >
> > While I've got the floor, I'm also definitely down with the suggestion
> > for a .NET ethos friendly wrapper -- could help the cause quite a bit
> > by making this much more approachable for the rest of the .NET world.
> >
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Hans Merkl <hm...@hmerkl.com>]

Has anybody tried using Lucene with IKVM.NET? I haven't tried it myself
(yet) but I keep hearing it works pretty well. That way, there would ne no
need for porting the actual code, instead you just convert the Java
executables to .NET. If it works, it seems a much faster approach than
porting the source code.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 09:55, Wyatt Barnett <wy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not sure if this is the right way to volunteer, but I've got limited
> experience with Lucene but it has been the best thing since sliced
> bread to me and I'd love to contribute to the project in any way I
> can.
>
> I'll also add that I've been running a home-compiled version of the
> 2.9.2 branch in production for the last few months with no problems,
> so I think it wouldn't take much to push that as a new binary release.
>
> While I've got the floor, I'm also definitely down with the suggestion
> for a .NET ethos friendly wrapper -- could help the cause quite a bit
> by making this much more approachable for the rest of the .NET world.
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Wyatt Barnett <wy...@gmail.com>]

Not sure if this is the right way to volunteer, but I've got limited
experience with Lucene but it has been the best thing since sliced
bread to me and I'd love to contribute to the project in any way I
can.

I'll also add that I've been running a home-compiled version of the
2.9.2 branch in production for the last few months with no problems,
so I think it wouldn't take much to push that as a new binary release.

While I've got the floor, I'm also definitely down with the suggestion
for a .NET ethos friendly wrapper -- could help the cause quite a bit
by making this much more approachable for the rest of the .NET world.

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Nic Wise <ni...@fastchicken.co.nz>]

Which tool were you using for this? Sharper? or the other one?

(just curious)

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 13:02, Andreas Mummenhoff <an...@online.de> wrote:
> what I found out from the converted source is interesting:
>
> a) generics are used, for example in class Document.cs:
>
> ///   <summary> Returns a List of all the fields in a document.
> ///   * <p>Note that fields which are <i>not</i> <seealso
> cref="Fieldable#isStored() stored"/> are
> ///   * <i>not</i> available in documents retrieved from the
> ///   * index, e.g. <seealso cref="Searcher#doc(int)"/> or {@link
> ///   * IndexReader#document(int)}. </summary>
> ///
>                  public IList<Fieldable> getFields()
>                  {
>                               return fields;
>                  }
>
> in class CharArraySet.cs:
>
>
>  /// <summary> returns an iterator of new allocated Strings  </summary>
>                  public virtual IEnumerator<string> stringIterator()
>                  {
>                               return new CharArraySetIterator();
>                  }
>
>
> b) there exists an option to convert getXXX, setXXX to properties, you have
> to fill a list with names which should be converted, I tried "Boost", the
> result in Document.cs:
>
>
> ///   <summary> Sets a boost factor for hits on any field of this document.
> This value
> ///   * will be multiplied into the score of all hits on this document.
> ///   *
> ///   * <p>The default value is 1.0.
> ///   *
> ///   * <p>Values are multiplied into the value of <seealso
> cref="Fieldable#getBoost()"/> of
> ///   * each field in this document.  Thus, this method in effect sets a
> default
> ///   * boost for the fields of this document.
> ///   * </summary>
> ///   * <seealso cref= Fieldable#setBoost(float) </seealso>
> ///
>                  public float Boost
>                  {
>                                 set
>                                 {
>                                               this.boost = value;
>                                 }
>                                 get
>                                 {
>                                               return boost;
>                                 }
>                  }
>
>
>
>
> this means, some kind of .Netifying is already performed WITHOUT
> additionally work.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. November 2010 12:45
> An: lucene-net-user; anmum
> Betreff: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Another possibility to have more .NET is to keep Lucene.Net the way it is
> now: line-by-line port and ugly java-ish API, and then write a small wrapper
> library that maps the java-like API to something more .NET.
>
> For example, the various SetSize(size) and GetSize() could be mapped to a
> Size property, and similar things.
> It would help maintain the easiness of maintainability of the line-by-line
> port, and will make the API more .NET-like.
>
> Simone
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Andreas Mummenhoff <an...@online.de> wrote:
>
>> I tried Java to VB & C# Converter (Version 1.5, which I have, current
>> version is 2.1), the conversion took me about 1 minute, the converted
> files
>> were commented with the following number of issues:
>>
>> What            Comment
>> Count
>> TODO TASK       Anonymous inner classes are not converted to .NET:
>> 52
>> TODO TASK       C# does not allow fall-through from a non-empty 'case':
>> 1
>> TODO TASK       Enums cannot contain methods in .NET:
>> 1
>> TODO TASK       Interfaces cannot contain fields in .NET:
>> 54
>> TODO TASK       Interfaces cannot contain types in .NET:
>> 10
>> TODO TASK       Java wildcard generics are not converted to .NET:
>> 29
>> TODO TASK       Local classes are not converted by Java to VB & C#
>> Converter:              2
>> TODO TASK       Most Java annotations will not have direct .NET equivalent
>> attributes:     12
>> TODO TASK       Octal literals cannot be represented in C#:
>> 13
>> TODO TASK       The following line could not be converted:
>> 1
>> TODO TASK       There is no .NET Dictionary equivalent to the Java
>> 'entrySet' method:      18
>> TODO TASK       There is no .NET Dictionary equivalent to the Java
> 'putAll'
>> method: 4
>> TODO TASK       There is no .NET LinkedList equivalent to the Java
> 'remove'
>> method: 1
>> TODO TASK       There is no '>>>' operator in .NET:
>> 25
>> WARNING 'final' parameters are not allowed in .NET:
>> 155
>> WARNING Method 'throws' clauses are not available in .NET:
>> 1266
>> WARNING The original Java variable was marked 'final':
>> 653
>> WARNING Unlike Java's ListIterator, enumerators in .NET do not allow
>> altering the collection:        2.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Michael Mitiaguin [mailto:mitiaguin@gmail.com]
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. November 2010 00:56
>> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>
>> Since some folks expressed a desire to help, perhaps, they could grab (
>> with
>> mentioning to the group - to avoid the same work ;  however,  it is
>> possible
>> that  people may come to slightly different conclusions)  various
>> cross-translators and report results  to the group.   The main interest, I
>> suppose, conversion Java Lucene 3.0.2 which is Java 1.5 and, I believe,
>> JCLA
>> is just not  capable to swallow. For the rest it remains to be seen if
>> results are adequate for further refinement. If not, there is a problem (
>> or
>> stumbling block ) how to keep up with Java Lucene.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Ben Martz <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm glad that my previous email appears to not have gone through since
> at
>> > first glance this solution appears to be much more mature that what I
>> have
>> > been looking at. Thanks for the links guys.
>> >
>> >
>> > Igor Latyshev wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Sharpen from db4o seems to be an open source tool:
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://developer.db4o.com/Blogs/Product/tabid/167/entryid/94/Default.aspx
>> >>
>> >> (there's a link to source code repository at the bottom of the page)
>> >>
>> >> Igor
>> >>
>> >> On 01/11/2010 22:37, Phil Haack wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Anyone know which translator does the best job? Perhaps we should
>> decide
>> >>> which is our preferred tool for translation (maybe with a #2 and #3
>> backup)
>> >>> and if cost is an issue, we can tackle that together. It seems to me
>> that
>> >>> helping out with the cost is something that a foundation ought to help
>> with.
>> >>> :) But if the Apache foundation doesn't pony up the money for the
>> software,
>> >>> maybe we can ask around. I'd be happy to see if I know any companies
>> that
>> >>> can help with sponsorship to purchase a license for such software.
>> >>>
>> >>> Phil
>> >>>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
>> >>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:32 PM
>> >>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; anmum@online.de
>> >>> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> >>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>> >>>
>> >>> Damn, you bet me to it. I was just about to post the same thing.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://foodformonkeys.blogspot.com/2010/10/ngit.html
>> >>>
>> >>> It was used here (recently - over the weekend I think) to port JGit
>> into
>> >>> NGit
>> >>>
>> >>> I'd stick my hand up - having use Lucene.Net on projects from
>> >>> multi-million dollar packaged products (Quest Archive Manager) to
>> websites (
>> >>> www.topgear.com) and various other places - but I'm about to leave on
>> a
>> >>> 3 month trip away, with limited internet for a lot of it....  So I'll
>> have
>> >>> to see where things are when I get back...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 22:26, Andreas Mummenhoff<an...@online.de>
>> >>>  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Hi Digy,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> maybe you know db4o, which is available for Java and .Net. As far as
> I
>> >>>> know, the development is done in Java and the .Net port is done with
>> >>>> an automated tool. I don't know if it's public available, one thing I
>> >>>> found is
>> >>>> (
>> http://developer.db4o.com/Projects/html/projectspaces/db4o_product_de
>> >>>> sign/s
>> >>>> harpen.html).
>> >>>> Anyway, it's for sure that they maintain only one code base and
>> >>>> generate the .Net version from the java code, which is even quite
>> >>>> .Netified. So it must be possible to do automated conversion!!!
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There is also another project on sourceforge that allows to translate
>> >>>> java to c#:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Another tool I found is
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> http://tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Product_Details/Java_to_VB_and_CS
>> >>>> harp_C
>> >>>> onverter_Details.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I know another product of this company, Instant C# / Instant VB,
> which
>> >>>> do a very good job.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And of course we can look into http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx,
>> >>>> which was proposed from George Aroush.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Maybe the afford is worth trying to get an automated tool running
> (for
>> >>>> example taking j2cs and tweak it to support special Lucene-cases). So
>> >>>> the next step could be to work not on Lucene.Net directly, but
>> >>>> developing an automated translation process. This in turn could open
>> >>>> the future for other wishes (for example translating setXXX, getXXX
>> into
>> >>>> properties).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What do you think?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And if there is some resistance with commercial tools, I could donate
>> >>>> some money for the license, and I'm sure other's will do as well, so
> a
>> >>>> few hundred $ will not be the problem.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Andreas
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> >>>> Von: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>> >>>> Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2010 22:32
>> >>>> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> >>>> Betreff: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating
> this
>> >>>> process.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>  How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Good question :)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> DIGY
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>> >>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
>> >>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> >>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi Digy,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I
>> >>>> didn't realize how much effort it was to just get the port working.
>> >>>> Hypothetically speaking, are there code translators that do a good
>> >>>> enough job of porting the code where there would be time to spend on
> a
>> >>>> tiny bit of clean up to .NET idioms?  That way, for each major
>> >>>> version, you do the port and then do a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive
> my
>> >>>> ignorance in this area.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a
>> >>>> gargantuan task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the
>> >>>> task. ;) However, what automated test coverage do you have. Is it
>> >>>> pretty substantial? Is it possible to run the Java Lucene tests
>> >>>> against the .NET code? I ask because at the very least, a small
> amount
>> >>>> of deviation form the line by line would be mitigated by such tests.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Phil
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>> >>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
>> >>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> >>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi Phil,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
>> >>>> What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
>> >>>> * Searching for differences from the current version and trying to
>> >>>> apply those changes to the current code Or
>> >>>> * Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
>> >>>> The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I
>> >>>> haven't found an automated way).
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> DIGY
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>> >>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
>> >>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> >>>> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi All,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've
> read
>> >>>> the thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the
>> >>>> hopes of being more helpful than not :)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port
>> >>>> of Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
>> >>>> (
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>> >>>> 1.mbox /raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>  You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With
>> >>>>> a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
>> >>>>> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
>> >>>>> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for
> this
>> >>>> approach was
>> >>>> (
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>> >>>> 1.mbox
>> >>>> /raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):
>> >>>>
>> >>>>  keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
>> >>>>> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the
>> >>>>> codebase
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> over
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement
>> >>>>> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation
>> >>>> at all (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the
>> >>>> Java
>> >>>> implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not
>> >>>> in its current form.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point.
>> >>>> The Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy
> lifting
>> >>>> when it comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying
>> >>>> true to some degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some
>> >>>> carefully targeted divergence could help breathe new life into the
>> >>>> project. Perhaps some sort of hybrid approach that loosens this line
>> >>>> by line requirement? Some have mentioned having the internals be
>> >>>> closer to the line-by-line but the public surface area fit more .NET.
>> >>>> Even parts of the internals could be .NETified to a small degree as
>> >>>> long as it's clear where the original source was from and with
>> >>>> sufficient test automation.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java
>> >>>> version.
>> >>>> Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to
>> >>>> do the port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of
> people
>> >>>> who want to see the project stay alive.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is
>> >>>> important to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Phil
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Nic Wise
>> >>> t.  +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken |
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
>> >>> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ |
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Simone Chiaretta
> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> twitter: @simonech
>
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> "Life is short, play hard"
>
>



-- 
Nic Wise
t.  +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken | http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ | http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise

AW: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Andreas Mummenhoff <an...@online.de>]

what I found out from the converted source is interesting:

a) generics are used, for example in class Document.cs:

///   <summary> Returns a List of all the fields in a document.
///   * <p>Note that fields which are <i>not</i> <seealso
cref="Fieldable#isStored() stored"/> are
///   * <i>not</i> available in documents retrieved from the
///   * index, e.g. <seealso cref="Searcher#doc(int)"/> or {@link
///   * IndexReader#document(int)}. </summary>
///   
                  public IList<Fieldable> getFields()
                  {
                               return fields;
                  }

in class CharArraySet.cs:


  /// <summary> returns an iterator of new allocated Strings  </summary>
                  public virtual IEnumerator<string> stringIterator()
                  {
                               return new CharArraySetIterator();
                  }


b) there exists an option to convert getXXX, setXXX to properties, you have
to fill a list with names which should be converted, I tried "Boost", the
result in Document.cs:


///   <summary> Sets a boost factor for hits on any field of this document.
This value
///   * will be multiplied into the score of all hits on this document.
///   *
///   * <p>The default value is 1.0.
///   * 
///   * <p>Values are multiplied into the value of <seealso
cref="Fieldable#getBoost()"/> of
///   * each field in this document.  Thus, this method in effect sets a
default
///   * boost for the fields of this document.
///   * </summary>
///   * <seealso cref= Fieldable#setBoost(float) </seealso>
///   
                  public float Boost
                  {
                                 set
                                 {
                                               this.boost = value;
                                 }
                                 get
                                 {
                                               return boost;
                                 }
                  }




this means, some kind of .Netifying is already performed WITHOUT
additionally work.







-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. November 2010 12:45
An: lucene-net-user; anmum
Betreff: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

Another possibility to have more .NET is to keep Lucene.Net the way it is
now: line-by-line port and ugly java-ish API, and then write a small wrapper
library that maps the java-like API to something more .NET.

For example, the various SetSize(size) and GetSize() could be mapped to a
Size property, and similar things.
It would help maintain the easiness of maintainability of the line-by-line
port, and will make the API more .NET-like.

Simone

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Andreas Mummenhoff <an...@online.de> wrote:

> I tried Java to VB & C# Converter (Version 1.5, which I have, current
> version is 2.1), the conversion took me about 1 minute, the converted
files
> were commented with the following number of issues:
>
> What            Comment
> Count
> TODO TASK       Anonymous inner classes are not converted to .NET:
> 52
> TODO TASK       C# does not allow fall-through from a non-empty 'case':
> 1
> TODO TASK       Enums cannot contain methods in .NET:
> 1
> TODO TASK       Interfaces cannot contain fields in .NET:
> 54
> TODO TASK       Interfaces cannot contain types in .NET:
> 10
> TODO TASK       Java wildcard generics are not converted to .NET:
> 29
> TODO TASK       Local classes are not converted by Java to VB & C#
> Converter:              2
> TODO TASK       Most Java annotations will not have direct .NET equivalent
> attributes:     12
> TODO TASK       Octal literals cannot be represented in C#:
> 13
> TODO TASK       The following line could not be converted:
> 1
> TODO TASK       There is no .NET Dictionary equivalent to the Java
> 'entrySet' method:      18
> TODO TASK       There is no .NET Dictionary equivalent to the Java
'putAll'
> method: 4
> TODO TASK       There is no .NET LinkedList equivalent to the Java
'remove'
> method: 1
> TODO TASK       There is no '>>>' operator in .NET:
> 25
> WARNING 'final' parameters are not allowed in .NET:
> 155
> WARNING Method 'throws' clauses are not available in .NET:
> 1266
> WARNING The original Java variable was marked 'final':
> 653
> WARNING Unlike Java's ListIterator, enumerators in .NET do not allow
> altering the collection:        2.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Michael Mitiaguin [mailto:mitiaguin@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. November 2010 00:56
> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Since some folks expressed a desire to help, perhaps, they could grab (
> with
> mentioning to the group - to avoid the same work ;  however,  it is
> possible
> that  people may come to slightly different conclusions)  various
> cross-translators and report results  to the group.   The main interest, I
> suppose, conversion Java Lucene 3.0.2 which is Java 1.5 and, I believe,
> JCLA
> is just not  capable to swallow. For the rest it remains to be seen if
> results are adequate for further refinement. If not, there is a problem (
> or
> stumbling block ) how to keep up with Java Lucene.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Ben Martz <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm glad that my previous email appears to not have gone through since
at
> > first glance this solution appears to be much more mature that what I
> have
> > been looking at. Thanks for the links guys.
> >
> >
> > Igor Latyshev wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Sharpen from db4o seems to be an open source tool:
> >>
> >>
> http://developer.db4o.com/Blogs/Product/tabid/167/entryid/94/Default.aspx
> >>
> >> (there's a link to source code repository at the bottom of the page)
> >>
> >> Igor
> >>
> >> On 01/11/2010 22:37, Phil Haack wrote:
> >>
> >>> Anyone know which translator does the best job? Perhaps we should
> decide
> >>> which is our preferred tool for translation (maybe with a #2 and #3
> backup)
> >>> and if cost is an issue, we can tackle that together. It seems to me
> that
> >>> helping out with the cost is something that a foundation ought to help
> with.
> >>> :) But if the Apache foundation doesn't pony up the money for the
> software,
> >>> maybe we can ask around. I'd be happy to see if I know any companies
> that
> >>> can help with sponsorship to purchase a license for such software.
> >>>
> >>> Phil
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
> >>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:32 PM
> >>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; anmum@online.de
> >>> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>>
> >>> Damn, you bet me to it. I was just about to post the same thing.
> >>>
> >>> http://foodformonkeys.blogspot.com/2010/10/ngit.html
> >>>
> >>> It was used here (recently - over the weekend I think) to port JGit
> into
> >>> NGit
> >>>
> >>> I'd stick my hand up - having use Lucene.Net on projects from
> >>> multi-million dollar packaged products (Quest Archive Manager) to
> websites (
> >>> www.topgear.com) and various other places - but I'm about to leave on
> a
> >>> 3 month trip away, with limited internet for a lot of it....  So I'll
> have
> >>> to see where things are when I get back...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 22:26, Andreas Mummenhoff<an...@online.de>
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Digy,
> >>>>
> >>>> maybe you know db4o, which is available for Java and .Net. As far as
I
> >>>> know, the development is done in Java and the .Net port is done with
> >>>> an automated tool. I don't know if it's public available, one thing I
> >>>> found is
> >>>> (
> http://developer.db4o.com/Projects/html/projectspaces/db4o_product_de
> >>>> sign/s
> >>>> harpen.html).
> >>>> Anyway, it's for sure that they maintain only one code base and
> >>>> generate the .Net version from the java code, which is even quite
> >>>> .Netified. So it must be possible to do automated conversion!!!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> There is also another project on sourceforge that allows to translate
> >>>> java to c#:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Another tool I found is
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Product_Details/Java_to_VB_and_CS
> >>>> harp_C
> >>>> onverter_Details.html
> >>>>
> >>>> I know another product of this company, Instant C# / Instant VB,
which
> >>>> do a very good job.
> >>>>
> >>>> And of course we can look into http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx,
> >>>> which was proposed from George Aroush.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe the afford is worth trying to get an automated tool running
(for
> >>>> example taking j2cs and tweak it to support special Lucene-cases). So
> >>>> the next step could be to work not on Lucene.Net directly, but
> >>>> developing an automated translation process. This in turn could open
> >>>> the future for other wishes (for example translating setXXX, getXXX
> into
> >>>> properties).
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you think?
> >>>>
> >>>> And if there is some resistance with commercial tools, I could donate
> >>>> some money for the license, and I'm sure other's will do as well, so
a
> >>>> few hundred $ will not be the problem.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Andreas
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>> Von: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> >>>> Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2010 22:32
> >>>> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >>>> Betreff: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>>>
> >>>> Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating
this
> >>>> process.
> >>>>
> >>>>  How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Good question :)
> >>>>
> >>>> DIGY
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
> >>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Digy,
> >>>>
> >>>> I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I
> >>>> didn't realize how much effort it was to just get the port working.
> >>>> Hypothetically speaking, are there code translators that do a good
> >>>> enough job of porting the code where there would be time to spend on
a
> >>>> tiny bit of clean up to .NET idioms?  That way, for each major
> >>>> version, you do the port and then do a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive
my
> >>>> ignorance in this area.
> >>>>
> >>>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
> >>>>
> >>>> Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a
> >>>> gargantuan task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the
> >>>> task. ;) However, what automated test coverage do you have. Is it
> >>>> pretty substantial? Is it possible to run the Java Lucene tests
> >>>> against the .NET code? I ask because at the very least, a small
amount
> >>>> of deviation form the line by line would be mitigated by such tests.
> >>>>
> >>>> Phil
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
> >>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Phil,
> >>>>
> >>>> I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
> >>>> What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
> >>>> * Searching for differences from the current version and trying to
> >>>> apply those changes to the current code Or
> >>>> * Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code
> >>>>
> >>>> The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
> >>>> The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I
> >>>> haven't found an automated way).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> DIGY
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
> >>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi All,
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've
read
> >>>> the thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the
> >>>> hopes of being more helpful than not :)
> >>>>
> >>>> The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port
> >>>> of Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
> >>>> (
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
> >>>> 1.mbox /raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:
> >>>>
> >>>>  You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With
> >>>>> a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
> >>>>> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
> >>>>> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
> >>>>>
> >>>> As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for
this
> >>>> approach was
> >>>> (
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
> >>>> 1.mbox
> >>>> /raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):
> >>>>
> >>>>  keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
> >>>>> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the
> >>>>> codebase
> >>>>>
> >>>> over
> >>>>
> >>>>> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement
> >>>>> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.
> >>>>>
> >>>> But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation
> >>>> at all (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the
> >>>> Java
> >>>> implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not
> >>>> in its current form.
> >>>>
> >>>> But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point.
> >>>> The Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy
lifting
> >>>> when it comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying
> >>>> true to some degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some
> >>>> carefully targeted divergence could help breathe new life into the
> >>>> project. Perhaps some sort of hybrid approach that loosens this line
> >>>> by line requirement? Some have mentioned having the internals be
> >>>> closer to the line-by-line but the public surface area fit more .NET.
> >>>> Even parts of the internals could be .NETified to a small degree as
> >>>> long as it's clear where the original source was from and with
> >>>> sufficient test automation.
> >>>>
> >>>> After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java
> >>>> version.
> >>>> Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to
> >>>> do the port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of
people
> >>>> who want to see the project stay alive.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is
> >>>> important to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.
> >>>>
> >>>> Phil
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Nic Wise
> >>> t.  +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken |
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
> >>> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ |
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>


-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

AW: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Andreas Mummenhoff <an...@online.de>]

what I found out from the converted source is interesting:

a) generics are used, for example in class Document.cs:

///   <summary> Returns a List of all the fields in a document.
///   * <p>Note that fields which are <i>not</i> <seealso
cref="Fieldable#isStored() stored"/> are
///   * <i>not</i> available in documents retrieved from the
///   * index, e.g. <seealso cref="Searcher#doc(int)"/> or {@link
///   * IndexReader#document(int)}. </summary>
///   
                  public IList<Fieldable> getFields()
                  {
                               return fields;
                  }

in class CharArraySet.cs:


  /// <summary> returns an iterator of new allocated Strings  </summary>
                  public virtual IEnumerator<string> stringIterator()
                  {
                               return new CharArraySetIterator();
                  }


b) there exists an option to convert getXXX, setXXX to properties, you have
to fill a list with names which should be converted, I tried "Boost", the
result in Document.cs:


///   <summary> Sets a boost factor for hits on any field of this document.
This value
///   * will be multiplied into the score of all hits on this document.
///   *
///   * <p>The default value is 1.0.
///   * 
///   * <p>Values are multiplied into the value of <seealso
cref="Fieldable#getBoost()"/> of
///   * each field in this document.  Thus, this method in effect sets a
default
///   * boost for the fields of this document.
///   * </summary>
///   * <seealso cref= Fieldable#setBoost(float) </seealso>
///   
                  public float Boost
                  {
                                 set
                                 {
                                               this.boost = value;
                                 }
                                 get
                                 {
                                               return boost;
                                 }
                  }




this means, some kind of .Netifying is already performed WITHOUT
additionally work.







-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. November 2010 12:45
An: lucene-net-user; anmum
Betreff: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

Another possibility to have more .NET is to keep Lucene.Net the way it is
now: line-by-line port and ugly java-ish API, and then write a small wrapper
library that maps the java-like API to something more .NET.

For example, the various SetSize(size) and GetSize() could be mapped to a
Size property, and similar things.
It would help maintain the easiness of maintainability of the line-by-line
port, and will make the API more .NET-like.

Simone

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Andreas Mummenhoff <an...@online.de> wrote:

> I tried Java to VB & C# Converter (Version 1.5, which I have, current
> version is 2.1), the conversion took me about 1 minute, the converted
files
> were commented with the following number of issues:
>
> What            Comment
> Count
> TODO TASK       Anonymous inner classes are not converted to .NET:
> 52
> TODO TASK       C# does not allow fall-through from a non-empty 'case':
> 1
> TODO TASK       Enums cannot contain methods in .NET:
> 1
> TODO TASK       Interfaces cannot contain fields in .NET:
> 54
> TODO TASK       Interfaces cannot contain types in .NET:
> 10
> TODO TASK       Java wildcard generics are not converted to .NET:
> 29
> TODO TASK       Local classes are not converted by Java to VB & C#
> Converter:              2
> TODO TASK       Most Java annotations will not have direct .NET equivalent
> attributes:     12
> TODO TASK       Octal literals cannot be represented in C#:
> 13
> TODO TASK       The following line could not be converted:
> 1
> TODO TASK       There is no .NET Dictionary equivalent to the Java
> 'entrySet' method:      18
> TODO TASK       There is no .NET Dictionary equivalent to the Java
'putAll'
> method: 4
> TODO TASK       There is no .NET LinkedList equivalent to the Java
'remove'
> method: 1
> TODO TASK       There is no '>>>' operator in .NET:
> 25
> WARNING 'final' parameters are not allowed in .NET:
> 155
> WARNING Method 'throws' clauses are not available in .NET:
> 1266
> WARNING The original Java variable was marked 'final':
> 653
> WARNING Unlike Java's ListIterator, enumerators in .NET do not allow
> altering the collection:        2.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Michael Mitiaguin [mailto:mitiaguin@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. November 2010 00:56
> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Since some folks expressed a desire to help, perhaps, they could grab (
> with
> mentioning to the group - to avoid the same work ;  however,  it is
> possible
> that  people may come to slightly different conclusions)  various
> cross-translators and report results  to the group.   The main interest, I
> suppose, conversion Java Lucene 3.0.2 which is Java 1.5 and, I believe,
> JCLA
> is just not  capable to swallow. For the rest it remains to be seen if
> results are adequate for further refinement. If not, there is a problem (
> or
> stumbling block ) how to keep up with Java Lucene.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Ben Martz <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm glad that my previous email appears to not have gone through since
at
> > first glance this solution appears to be much more mature that what I
> have
> > been looking at. Thanks for the links guys.
> >
> >
> > Igor Latyshev wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Sharpen from db4o seems to be an open source tool:
> >>
> >>
> http://developer.db4o.com/Blogs/Product/tabid/167/entryid/94/Default.aspx
> >>
> >> (there's a link to source code repository at the bottom of the page)
> >>
> >> Igor
> >>
> >> On 01/11/2010 22:37, Phil Haack wrote:
> >>
> >>> Anyone know which translator does the best job? Perhaps we should
> decide
> >>> which is our preferred tool for translation (maybe with a #2 and #3
> backup)
> >>> and if cost is an issue, we can tackle that together. It seems to me
> that
> >>> helping out with the cost is something that a foundation ought to help
> with.
> >>> :) But if the Apache foundation doesn't pony up the money for the
> software,
> >>> maybe we can ask around. I'd be happy to see if I know any companies
> that
> >>> can help with sponsorship to purchase a license for such software.
> >>>
> >>> Phil
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
> >>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:32 PM
> >>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; anmum@online.de
> >>> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>>
> >>> Damn, you bet me to it. I was just about to post the same thing.
> >>>
> >>> http://foodformonkeys.blogspot.com/2010/10/ngit.html
> >>>
> >>> It was used here (recently - over the weekend I think) to port JGit
> into
> >>> NGit
> >>>
> >>> I'd stick my hand up - having use Lucene.Net on projects from
> >>> multi-million dollar packaged products (Quest Archive Manager) to
> websites (
> >>> www.topgear.com) and various other places - but I'm about to leave on
> a
> >>> 3 month trip away, with limited internet for a lot of it....  So I'll
> have
> >>> to see where things are when I get back...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 22:26, Andreas Mummenhoff<an...@online.de>
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Digy,
> >>>>
> >>>> maybe you know db4o, which is available for Java and .Net. As far as
I
> >>>> know, the development is done in Java and the .Net port is done with
> >>>> an automated tool. I don't know if it's public available, one thing I
> >>>> found is
> >>>> (
> http://developer.db4o.com/Projects/html/projectspaces/db4o_product_de
> >>>> sign/s
> >>>> harpen.html).
> >>>> Anyway, it's for sure that they maintain only one code base and
> >>>> generate the .Net version from the java code, which is even quite
> >>>> .Netified. So it must be possible to do automated conversion!!!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> There is also another project on sourceforge that allows to translate
> >>>> java to c#:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Another tool I found is
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Product_Details/Java_to_VB_and_CS
> >>>> harp_C
> >>>> onverter_Details.html
> >>>>
> >>>> I know another product of this company, Instant C# / Instant VB,
which
> >>>> do a very good job.
> >>>>
> >>>> And of course we can look into http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx,
> >>>> which was proposed from George Aroush.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe the afford is worth trying to get an automated tool running
(for
> >>>> example taking j2cs and tweak it to support special Lucene-cases). So
> >>>> the next step could be to work not on Lucene.Net directly, but
> >>>> developing an automated translation process. This in turn could open
> >>>> the future for other wishes (for example translating setXXX, getXXX
> into
> >>>> properties).
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you think?
> >>>>
> >>>> And if there is some resistance with commercial tools, I could donate
> >>>> some money for the license, and I'm sure other's will do as well, so
a
> >>>> few hundred $ will not be the problem.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Andreas
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>> Von: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> >>>> Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2010 22:32
> >>>> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >>>> Betreff: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>>>
> >>>> Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating
this
> >>>> process.
> >>>>
> >>>>  How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Good question :)
> >>>>
> >>>> DIGY
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
> >>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Digy,
> >>>>
> >>>> I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I
> >>>> didn't realize how much effort it was to just get the port working.
> >>>> Hypothetically speaking, are there code translators that do a good
> >>>> enough job of porting the code where there would be time to spend on
a
> >>>> tiny bit of clean up to .NET idioms?  That way, for each major
> >>>> version, you do the port and then do a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive
my
> >>>> ignorance in this area.
> >>>>
> >>>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
> >>>>
> >>>> Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a
> >>>> gargantuan task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the
> >>>> task. ;) However, what automated test coverage do you have. Is it
> >>>> pretty substantial? Is it possible to run the Java Lucene tests
> >>>> against the .NET code? I ask because at the very least, a small
amount
> >>>> of deviation form the line by line would be mitigated by such tests.
> >>>>
> >>>> Phil
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
> >>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Phil,
> >>>>
> >>>> I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
> >>>> What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
> >>>> * Searching for differences from the current version and trying to
> >>>> apply those changes to the current code Or
> >>>> * Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code
> >>>>
> >>>> The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
> >>>> The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I
> >>>> haven't found an automated way).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> DIGY
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
> >>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi All,
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've
read
> >>>> the thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the
> >>>> hopes of being more helpful than not :)
> >>>>
> >>>> The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port
> >>>> of Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
> >>>> (
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
> >>>> 1.mbox /raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:
> >>>>
> >>>>  You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With
> >>>>> a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
> >>>>> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
> >>>>> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
> >>>>>
> >>>> As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for
this
> >>>> approach was
> >>>> (
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
> >>>> 1.mbox
> >>>> /raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):
> >>>>
> >>>>  keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
> >>>>> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the
> >>>>> codebase
> >>>>>
> >>>> over
> >>>>
> >>>>> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement
> >>>>> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.
> >>>>>
> >>>> But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation
> >>>> at all (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the
> >>>> Java
> >>>> implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not
> >>>> in its current form.
> >>>>
> >>>> But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point.
> >>>> The Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy
lifting
> >>>> when it comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying
> >>>> true to some degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some
> >>>> carefully targeted divergence could help breathe new life into the
> >>>> project. Perhaps some sort of hybrid approach that loosens this line
> >>>> by line requirement? Some have mentioned having the internals be
> >>>> closer to the line-by-line but the public surface area fit more .NET.
> >>>> Even parts of the internals could be .NETified to a small degree as
> >>>> long as it's clear where the original source was from and with
> >>>> sufficient test automation.
> >>>>
> >>>> After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java
> >>>> version.
> >>>> Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to
> >>>> do the port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of
people
> >>>> who want to see the project stay alive.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is
> >>>> important to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.
> >>>>
> >>>> Phil
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Nic Wise
> >>> t.  +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken |
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
> >>> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ |
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>


-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Aaron Powell <me...@aaron-powell.com>]

This is what we tried to do with Examine (http://examine.codeplex.com) but
ended up wrapping Lucene a bit more than we probably should have. The next
version we'll probably have less abstracted away
Aaron Powell
Umbraco Ninja

http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com


On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
simone.chiaretta@gmail.com> wrote:

> Another possibility to have more .NET is to keep Lucene.Net the way it is
> now: line-by-line port and ugly java-ish API, and then write a small
> wrapper
> library that maps the java-like API to something more .NET.
>
> For example, the various SetSize(size) and GetSize() could be mapped to a
> Size property, and similar things.
> It would help maintain the easiness of maintainability of the line-by-line
> port, and will make the API more .NET-like.
>
> Simone
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Andreas Mummenhoff <an...@online.de>
> wrote:
>
> > I tried Java to VB & C# Converter (Version 1.5, which I have, current
> > version is 2.1), the conversion took me about 1 minute, the converted
> files
> > were commented with the following number of issues:
> >
> > What            Comment
> > Count
> > TODO TASK       Anonymous inner classes are not converted to .NET:
> > 52
> > TODO TASK       C# does not allow fall-through from a non-empty 'case':
> > 1
> > TODO TASK       Enums cannot contain methods in .NET:
> > 1
> > TODO TASK       Interfaces cannot contain fields in .NET:
> > 54
> > TODO TASK       Interfaces cannot contain types in .NET:
> > 10
> > TODO TASK       Java wildcard generics are not converted to .NET:
> > 29
> > TODO TASK       Local classes are not converted by Java to VB & C#
> > Converter:              2
> > TODO TASK       Most Java annotations will not have direct .NET
> equivalent
> > attributes:     12
> > TODO TASK       Octal literals cannot be represented in C#:
> > 13
> > TODO TASK       The following line could not be converted:
> > 1
> > TODO TASK       There is no .NET Dictionary equivalent to the Java
> > 'entrySet' method:      18
> > TODO TASK       There is no .NET Dictionary equivalent to the Java
> 'putAll'
> > method: 4
> > TODO TASK       There is no .NET LinkedList equivalent to the Java
> 'remove'
> > method: 1
> > TODO TASK       There is no '>>>' operator in .NET:
> > 25
> > WARNING 'final' parameters are not allowed in .NET:
> > 155
> > WARNING Method 'throws' clauses are not available in .NET:
> > 1266
> > WARNING The original Java variable was marked 'final':
> > 653
> > WARNING Unlike Java's ListIterator, enumerators in .NET do not allow
> > altering the collection:        2.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Michael Mitiaguin [mailto:mitiaguin@gmail.com]
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. November 2010 00:56
> > An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >
> > Since some folks expressed a desire to help, perhaps, they could grab (
> > with
> > mentioning to the group - to avoid the same work ;  however,  it is
> > possible
> > that  people may come to slightly different conclusions)  various
> > cross-translators and report results  to the group.   The main interest,
> I
> > suppose, conversion Java Lucene 3.0.2 which is Java 1.5 and, I believe,
> > JCLA
> > is just not  capable to swallow. For the rest it remains to be seen if
> > results are adequate for further refinement. If not, there is a problem (
> > or
> > stumbling block ) how to keep up with Java Lucene.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Ben Martz <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm glad that my previous email appears to not have gone through since
> at
> > > first glance this solution appears to be much more mature that what I
> > have
> > > been looking at. Thanks for the links guys.
> > >
> > >
> > > Igor Latyshev wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Sharpen from db4o seems to be an open source tool:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> http://developer.db4o.com/Blogs/Product/tabid/167/entryid/94/Default.aspx
> > >>
> > >> (there's a link to source code repository at the bottom of the page)
> > >>
> > >> Igor
> > >>
> > >> On 01/11/2010 22:37, Phil Haack wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Anyone know which translator does the best job? Perhaps we should
> > decide
> > >>> which is our preferred tool for translation (maybe with a #2 and #3
> > backup)
> > >>> and if cost is an issue, we can tackle that together. It seems to me
> > that
> > >>> helping out with the cost is something that a foundation ought to
> help
> > with.
> > >>> :) But if the Apache foundation doesn't pony up the money for the
> > software,
> > >>> maybe we can ask around. I'd be happy to see if I know any companies
> > that
> > >>> can help with sponsorship to purchase a license for such software.
> > >>>
> > >>> Phil
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
> > >>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:32 PM
> > >>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; anmum@online.de
> > >>> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > >>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> > >>>
> > >>> Damn, you bet me to it. I was just about to post the same thing.
> > >>>
> > >>> http://foodformonkeys.blogspot.com/2010/10/ngit.html
> > >>>
> > >>> It was used here (recently - over the weekend I think) to port JGit
> > into
> > >>> NGit
> > >>>
> > >>> I'd stick my hand up - having use Lucene.Net on projects from
> > >>> multi-million dollar packaged products (Quest Archive Manager) to
> > websites (
> > >>> www.topgear.com) and various other places - but I'm about to leave
> on
> > a
> > >>> 3 month trip away, with limited internet for a lot of it....  So I'll
> > have
> > >>> to see where things are when I get back...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 22:26, Andreas Mummenhoff<an...@online.de>
> > >>>  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi Digy,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> maybe you know db4o, which is available for Java and .Net. As far as
> I
> > >>>> know, the development is done in Java and the .Net port is done with
> > >>>> an automated tool. I don't know if it's public available, one thing
> I
> > >>>> found is
> > >>>> (
> > http://developer.db4o.com/Projects/html/projectspaces/db4o_product_de
> > >>>> sign/s
> > >>>> harpen.html).
> > >>>> Anyway, it's for sure that they maintain only one code base and
> > >>>> generate the .Net version from the java code, which is even quite
> > >>>> .Netified. So it must be possible to do automated conversion!!!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> There is also another project on sourceforge that allows to
> translate
> > >>>> java to c#:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Another tool I found is
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > http://tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Product_Details/Java_to_VB_and_CS
> > >>>> harp_C
> > >>>> onverter_Details.html
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I know another product of this company, Instant C# / Instant VB,
> which
> > >>>> do a very good job.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And of course we can look into
> http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx,
> > >>>> which was proposed from George Aroush.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Maybe the afford is worth trying to get an automated tool running
> (for
> > >>>> example taking j2cs and tweak it to support special Lucene-cases).
> So
> > >>>> the next step could be to work not on Lucene.Net directly, but
> > >>>> developing an automated translation process. This in turn could open
> > >>>> the future for other wishes (for example translating setXXX, getXXX
> > into
> > >>>> properties).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What do you think?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And if there is some resistance with commercial tools, I could
> donate
> > >>>> some money for the license, and I'm sure other's will do as well, so
> a
> > >>>> few hundred $ will not be the problem.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Andreas
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > >>>> Von: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> > >>>> Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2010 22:32
> > >>>> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > >>>> Betreff: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating
> this
> > >>>> process.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Good question :)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> DIGY
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
> > >>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
> > >>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > >>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Digy,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I
> > >>>> didn't realize how much effort it was to just get the port working.
> > >>>> Hypothetically speaking, are there code translators that do a good
> > >>>> enough job of porting the code where there would be time to spend on
> a
> > >>>> tiny bit of clean up to .NET idioms?  That way, for each major
> > >>>> version, you do the port and then do a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive
> my
> > >>>> ignorance in this area.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a
> > >>>> gargantuan task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the
> > >>>> task. ;) However, what automated test coverage do you have. Is it
> > >>>> pretty substantial? Is it possible to run the Java Lucene tests
> > >>>> against the .NET code? I ask because at the very least, a small
> amount
> > >>>> of deviation form the line by line would be mitigated by such tests.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Phil
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> > >>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
> > >>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > >>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Phil,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
> > >>>> What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
> > >>>> * Searching for differences from the current version and trying to
> > >>>> apply those changes to the current code Or
> > >>>> * Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
> > >>>> The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I
> > >>>> haven't found an automated way).
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> DIGY
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
> > >>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
> > >>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > >>>> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi All,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've
> read
> > >>>> the thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the
> > >>>> hopes of being more helpful than not :)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line
> port
> > >>>> of Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
> > >>>> (
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
> > >>>> 1.mbox /raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene
> With
> > >>>>> a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
> > >>>>> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
> > >>>>> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for
> this
> > >>>> approach was
> > >>>> (
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
> > >>>> 1.mbox
> > >>>> /raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
> > >>>>> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the
> > >>>>> codebase
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> over
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could
> implement
> > >>>>> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation
> > >>>> at all (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the
> > >>>> Java
> > >>>> implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not
> > >>>> in its current form.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's
> point.
> > >>>> The Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy
> lifting
> > >>>> when it comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of
> staying
> > >>>> true to some degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some
> > >>>> carefully targeted divergence could help breathe new life into the
> > >>>> project. Perhaps some sort of hybrid approach that loosens this line
> > >>>> by line requirement? Some have mentioned having the internals be
> > >>>> closer to the line-by-line but the public surface area fit more
> .NET.
> > >>>> Even parts of the internals could be .NETified to a small degree as
> > >>>> long as it's clear where the original source was from and with
> > >>>> sufficient test automation.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java
> > >>>> version.
> > >>>> Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost
> to
> > >>>> do the port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of
> people
> > >>>> who want to see the project stay alive.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is
> > >>>> important to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Phil
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Nic Wise
> > >>> t.  +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken |
> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
> > >>> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ |
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Simone Chiaretta
> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> twitter: @simonech
>
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> "Life is short, play hard"
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>]

Another possibility to have more .NET is to keep Lucene.Net the way it is
now: line-by-line port and ugly java-ish API, and then write a small wrapper
library that maps the java-like API to something more .NET.

For example, the various SetSize(size) and GetSize() could be mapped to a
Size property, and similar things.
It would help maintain the easiness of maintainability of the line-by-line
port, and will make the API more .NET-like.

Simone

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Andreas Mummenhoff <an...@online.de> wrote:

> I tried Java to VB & C# Converter (Version 1.5, which I have, current
> version is 2.1), the conversion took me about 1 minute, the converted files
> were commented with the following number of issues:
>
> What            Comment
> Count
> TODO TASK       Anonymous inner classes are not converted to .NET:
> 52
> TODO TASK       C# does not allow fall-through from a non-empty 'case':
> 1
> TODO TASK       Enums cannot contain methods in .NET:
> 1
> TODO TASK       Interfaces cannot contain fields in .NET:
> 54
> TODO TASK       Interfaces cannot contain types in .NET:
> 10
> TODO TASK       Java wildcard generics are not converted to .NET:
> 29
> TODO TASK       Local classes are not converted by Java to VB & C#
> Converter:              2
> TODO TASK       Most Java annotations will not have direct .NET equivalent
> attributes:     12
> TODO TASK       Octal literals cannot be represented in C#:
> 13
> TODO TASK       The following line could not be converted:
> 1
> TODO TASK       There is no .NET Dictionary equivalent to the Java
> 'entrySet' method:      18
> TODO TASK       There is no .NET Dictionary equivalent to the Java 'putAll'
> method: 4
> TODO TASK       There is no .NET LinkedList equivalent to the Java 'remove'
> method: 1
> TODO TASK       There is no '>>>' operator in .NET:
> 25
> WARNING 'final' parameters are not allowed in .NET:
> 155
> WARNING Method 'throws' clauses are not available in .NET:
> 1266
> WARNING The original Java variable was marked 'final':
> 653
> WARNING Unlike Java's ListIterator, enumerators in .NET do not allow
> altering the collection:        2.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Michael Mitiaguin [mailto:mitiaguin@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. November 2010 00:56
> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Since some folks expressed a desire to help, perhaps, they could grab (
> with
> mentioning to the group - to avoid the same work ;  however,  it is
> possible
> that  people may come to slightly different conclusions)  various
> cross-translators and report results  to the group.   The main interest, I
> suppose, conversion Java Lucene 3.0.2 which is Java 1.5 and, I believe,
> JCLA
> is just not  capable to swallow. For the rest it remains to be seen if
> results are adequate for further refinement. If not, there is a problem (
> or
> stumbling block ) how to keep up with Java Lucene.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Ben Martz <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm glad that my previous email appears to not have gone through since at
> > first glance this solution appears to be much more mature that what I
> have
> > been looking at. Thanks for the links guys.
> >
> >
> > Igor Latyshev wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Sharpen from db4o seems to be an open source tool:
> >>
> >>
> http://developer.db4o.com/Blogs/Product/tabid/167/entryid/94/Default.aspx
> >>
> >> (there's a link to source code repository at the bottom of the page)
> >>
> >> Igor
> >>
> >> On 01/11/2010 22:37, Phil Haack wrote:
> >>
> >>> Anyone know which translator does the best job? Perhaps we should
> decide
> >>> which is our preferred tool for translation (maybe with a #2 and #3
> backup)
> >>> and if cost is an issue, we can tackle that together. It seems to me
> that
> >>> helping out with the cost is something that a foundation ought to help
> with.
> >>> :) But if the Apache foundation doesn't pony up the money for the
> software,
> >>> maybe we can ask around. I'd be happy to see if I know any companies
> that
> >>> can help with sponsorship to purchase a license for such software.
> >>>
> >>> Phil
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
> >>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:32 PM
> >>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; anmum@online.de
> >>> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>>
> >>> Damn, you bet me to it. I was just about to post the same thing.
> >>>
> >>> http://foodformonkeys.blogspot.com/2010/10/ngit.html
> >>>
> >>> It was used here (recently - over the weekend I think) to port JGit
> into
> >>> NGit
> >>>
> >>> I'd stick my hand up - having use Lucene.Net on projects from
> >>> multi-million dollar packaged products (Quest Archive Manager) to
> websites (
> >>> www.topgear.com) and various other places - but I'm about to leave on
> a
> >>> 3 month trip away, with limited internet for a lot of it....  So I'll
> have
> >>> to see where things are when I get back...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 22:26, Andreas Mummenhoff<an...@online.de>
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Digy,
> >>>>
> >>>> maybe you know db4o, which is available for Java and .Net. As far as I
> >>>> know, the development is done in Java and the .Net port is done with
> >>>> an automated tool. I don't know if it's public available, one thing I
> >>>> found is
> >>>> (
> http://developer.db4o.com/Projects/html/projectspaces/db4o_product_de
> >>>> sign/s
> >>>> harpen.html).
> >>>> Anyway, it's for sure that they maintain only one code base and
> >>>> generate the .Net version from the java code, which is even quite
> >>>> .Netified. So it must be possible to do automated conversion!!!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> There is also another project on sourceforge that allows to translate
> >>>> java to c#:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Another tool I found is
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Product_Details/Java_to_VB_and_CS
> >>>> harp_C
> >>>> onverter_Details.html
> >>>>
> >>>> I know another product of this company, Instant C# / Instant VB, which
> >>>> do a very good job.
> >>>>
> >>>> And of course we can look into http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx,
> >>>> which was proposed from George Aroush.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe the afford is worth trying to get an automated tool running (for
> >>>> example taking j2cs and tweak it to support special Lucene-cases). So
> >>>> the next step could be to work not on Lucene.Net directly, but
> >>>> developing an automated translation process. This in turn could open
> >>>> the future for other wishes (for example translating setXXX, getXXX
> into
> >>>> properties).
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you think?
> >>>>
> >>>> And if there is some resistance with commercial tools, I could donate
> >>>> some money for the license, and I'm sure other's will do as well, so a
> >>>> few hundred $ will not be the problem.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Andreas
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >>>> Von: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> >>>> Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2010 22:32
> >>>> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >>>> Betreff: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>>>
> >>>> Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating this
> >>>> process.
> >>>>
> >>>>  How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Good question :)
> >>>>
> >>>> DIGY
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
> >>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Digy,
> >>>>
> >>>> I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I
> >>>> didn't realize how much effort it was to just get the port working.
> >>>> Hypothetically speaking, are there code translators that do a good
> >>>> enough job of porting the code where there would be time to spend on a
> >>>> tiny bit of clean up to .NET idioms?  That way, for each major
> >>>> version, you do the port and then do a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive my
> >>>> ignorance in this area.
> >>>>
> >>>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
> >>>>
> >>>> Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a
> >>>> gargantuan task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the
> >>>> task. ;) However, what automated test coverage do you have. Is it
> >>>> pretty substantial? Is it possible to run the Java Lucene tests
> >>>> against the .NET code? I ask because at the very least, a small amount
> >>>> of deviation form the line by line would be mitigated by such tests.
> >>>>
> >>>> Phil
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
> >>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Phil,
> >>>>
> >>>> I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
> >>>> What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
> >>>> * Searching for differences from the current version and trying to
> >>>> apply those changes to the current code Or
> >>>> * Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code
> >>>>
> >>>> The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
> >>>> The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I
> >>>> haven't found an automated way).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> DIGY
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
> >>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi All,
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read
> >>>> the thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the
> >>>> hopes of being more helpful than not :)
> >>>>
> >>>> The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port
> >>>> of Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
> >>>> (
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
> >>>> 1.mbox /raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:
> >>>>
> >>>>  You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With
> >>>>> a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
> >>>>> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
> >>>>> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
> >>>>>
> >>>> As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this
> >>>> approach was
> >>>> (
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
> >>>> 1.mbox
> >>>> /raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):
> >>>>
> >>>>  keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
> >>>>> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the
> >>>>> codebase
> >>>>>
> >>>> over
> >>>>
> >>>>> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement
> >>>>> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.
> >>>>>
> >>>> But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation
> >>>> at all (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the
> >>>> Java
> >>>> implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not
> >>>> in its current form.
> >>>>
> >>>> But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point.
> >>>> The Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting
> >>>> when it comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying
> >>>> true to some degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some
> >>>> carefully targeted divergence could help breathe new life into the
> >>>> project. Perhaps some sort of hybrid approach that loosens this line
> >>>> by line requirement? Some have mentioned having the internals be
> >>>> closer to the line-by-line but the public surface area fit more .NET.
> >>>> Even parts of the internals could be .NETified to a small degree as
> >>>> long as it's clear where the original source was from and with
> >>>> sufficient test automation.
> >>>>
> >>>> After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java
> >>>> version.
> >>>> Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to
> >>>> do the port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people
> >>>> who want to see the project stay alive.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is
> >>>> important to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.
> >>>>
> >>>> Phil
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Nic Wise
> >>> t.  +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken |
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
> >>> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ |
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>


-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

AW: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Andreas Mummenhoff <an...@online.de>]

I tried Java to VB & C# Converter (Version 1.5, which I have, current
version is 2.1), the conversion took me about 1 minute, the converted files
were commented with the following number of issues:

What		Comment
Count
TODO TASK	Anonymous inner classes are not converted to .NET:
52
TODO TASK	C# does not allow fall-through from a non-empty 'case':
1
TODO TASK	Enums cannot contain methods in .NET:
1
TODO TASK	Interfaces cannot contain fields in .NET:
54
TODO TASK	Interfaces cannot contain types in .NET:
10
TODO TASK	Java wildcard generics are not converted to .NET:
29
TODO TASK	Local classes are not converted by Java to VB & C#
Converter:		2
TODO TASK	Most Java annotations will not have direct .NET equivalent
attributes:	12
TODO TASK	Octal literals cannot be represented in C#:
13
TODO TASK	The following line could not be converted:
1
TODO TASK	There is no .NET Dictionary equivalent to the Java
'entrySet' method:	18
TODO TASK	There is no .NET Dictionary equivalent to the Java 'putAll'
method:	4
TODO TASK	There is no .NET LinkedList equivalent to the Java 'remove'
method:	1
TODO TASK	There is no '>>>' operator in .NET:
25
WARNING	'final' parameters are not allowed in .NET:
155
WARNING	Method 'throws' clauses are not available in .NET:
1266
WARNING	The original Java variable was marked 'final':
653
WARNING	Unlike Java's ListIterator, enumerators in .NET do not allow
altering the collection:	2.







-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Michael Mitiaguin [mailto:mitiaguin@gmail.com] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. November 2010 00:56
An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

Since some folks expressed a desire to help, perhaps, they could grab ( with
mentioning to the group - to avoid the same work ;  however,  it is possible
that  people may come to slightly different conclusions)  various
cross-translators and report results  to the group.   The main interest, I
suppose, conversion Java Lucene 3.0.2 which is Java 1.5 and, I believe, JCLA
is just not  capable to swallow. For the rest it remains to be seen if
results are adequate for further refinement. If not, there is a problem ( or
stumbling block ) how to keep up with Java Lucene.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Ben Martz <be...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm glad that my previous email appears to not have gone through since at
> first glance this solution appears to be much more mature that what I have
> been looking at. Thanks for the links guys.
>
>
> Igor Latyshev wrote:
>
>>
>> Sharpen from db4o seems to be an open source tool:
>>
>> http://developer.db4o.com/Blogs/Product/tabid/167/entryid/94/Default.aspx
>>
>> (there's a link to source code repository at the bottom of the page)
>>
>> Igor
>>
>> On 01/11/2010 22:37, Phil Haack wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone know which translator does the best job? Perhaps we should decide
>>> which is our preferred tool for translation (maybe with a #2 and #3
backup)
>>> and if cost is an issue, we can tackle that together. It seems to me
that
>>> helping out with the cost is something that a foundation ought to help
with.
>>> :) But if the Apache foundation doesn't pony up the money for the
software,
>>> maybe we can ask around. I'd be happy to see if I know any companies
that
>>> can help with sponsorship to purchase a license for such software.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:32 PM
>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; anmum@online.de
>>> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>
>>> Damn, you bet me to it. I was just about to post the same thing.
>>>
>>> http://foodformonkeys.blogspot.com/2010/10/ngit.html
>>>
>>> It was used here (recently - over the weekend I think) to port JGit into
>>> NGit
>>>
>>> I'd stick my hand up - having use Lucene.Net on projects from
>>> multi-million dollar packaged products (Quest Archive Manager) to
websites (
>>> www.topgear.com) and various other places - but I'm about to leave on a
>>> 3 month trip away, with limited internet for a lot of it....  So I'll
have
>>> to see where things are when I get back...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 22:26, Andreas Mummenhoff<an...@online.de>
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Digy,
>>>>
>>>> maybe you know db4o, which is available for Java and .Net. As far as I
>>>> know, the development is done in Java and the .Net port is done with
>>>> an automated tool. I don't know if it's public available, one thing I
>>>> found is
>>>> (http://developer.db4o.com/Projects/html/projectspaces/db4o_product_de
>>>> sign/s
>>>> harpen.html).
>>>> Anyway, it's for sure that they maintain only one code base and
>>>> generate the .Net version from the java code, which is even quite
>>>> .Netified. So it must be possible to do automated conversion!!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is also another project on sourceforge that allows to translate
>>>> java to c#:
>>>>
>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another tool I found is
>>>>
>>>> http://tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Product_Details/Java_to_VB_and_CS
>>>> harp_C
>>>> onverter_Details.html
>>>>
>>>> I know another product of this company, Instant C# / Instant VB, which
>>>> do a very good job.
>>>>
>>>> And of course we can look into http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx,
>>>> which was proposed from George Aroush.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the afford is worth trying to get an automated tool running (for
>>>> example taking j2cs and tweak it to support special Lucene-cases). So
>>>> the next step could be to work not on Lucene.Net directly, but
>>>> developing an automated translation process. This in turn could open
>>>> the future for other wishes (for example translating setXXX, getXXX
into
>>>> properties).
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> And if there is some resistance with commercial tools, I could donate
>>>> some money for the license, and I'm sure other's will do as well, so a
>>>> few hundred $ will not be the problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andreas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> Von: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>>>> Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2010 22:32
>>>> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>> Betreff: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>
>>>> Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating this
>>>> process.
>>>>
>>>>  How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>>>>>
>>>> Good question :)
>>>>
>>>> DIGY
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>
>>>> Hi Digy,
>>>>
>>>> I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I
>>>> didn't realize how much effort it was to just get the port working.
>>>> Hypothetically speaking, are there code translators that do a good
>>>> enough job of porting the code where there would be time to spend on a
>>>> tiny bit of clean up to .NET idioms?  That way, for each major
>>>> version, you do the port and then do a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive my
>>>> ignorance in this area.
>>>>
>>>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>>>>
>>>> Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a
>>>> gargantuan task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the
>>>> task. ;) However, what automated test coverage do you have. Is it
>>>> pretty substantial? Is it possible to run the Java Lucene tests
>>>> against the .NET code? I ask because at the very least, a small amount
>>>> of deviation form the line by line would be mitigated by such tests.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>
>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>
>>>> I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
>>>> What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
>>>> * Searching for differences from the current version and trying to
>>>> apply those changes to the current code Or
>>>> * Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code
>>>>
>>>> The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
>>>> The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I
>>>> haven't found an automated way).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DIGY
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read
>>>> the thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the
>>>> hopes of being more helpful than not :)
>>>>
>>>> The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port
>>>> of Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
>>>> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>>>> 1.mbox /raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:
>>>>
>>>>  You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With
>>>>> a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
>>>>> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
>>>>> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
>>>>>
>>>> As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this
>>>> approach was
>>>> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>>>> 1.mbox
>>>> /raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):
>>>>
>>>>  keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
>>>>> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the
>>>>> codebase
>>>>>
>>>> over
>>>>
>>>>> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement
>>>>> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.
>>>>>
>>>> But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation
>>>> at all (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the
>>>> Java
>>>> implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not
>>>> in its current form.
>>>>
>>>> But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point.
>>>> The Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting
>>>> when it comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying
>>>> true to some degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some
>>>> carefully targeted divergence could help breathe new life into the
>>>> project. Perhaps some sort of hybrid approach that loosens this line
>>>> by line requirement? Some have mentioned having the internals be
>>>> closer to the line-by-line but the public surface area fit more .NET.
>>>> Even parts of the internals could be .NETified to a small degree as
>>>> long as it's clear where the original source was from and with
>>>> sufficient test automation.
>>>>
>>>> After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java
>>>> version.
>>>> Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to
>>>> do the port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people
>>>> who want to see the project stay alive.
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is
>>>> important to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Nic Wise
>>> t.  +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken | http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
>>> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ | http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
>>>
>>>
>>

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Mirnes Lemeš <mi...@alternativa.ba>]

How to sign out from this mailing list?

-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Kalders [mailto:igor@wefocus.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 10:54 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

As a Lucene.Net user, I'm following the discussion from the side. Funny that
Sharpen now pops up, as I've tried to use it earlier this year to port the
Java CSSParser to C#.

Finally, I had to give up on the mismatch of used libraries, as I could not
map w3c.org to a .NET equivalent, nor was it easy to port that one
altogether. My first thought was you might run into something similar, but
since the current Lucene.Net is already a line-to-line port, I guess not.

Now, I'm really curious as to what the experience with Lucene.Net vs Sharpen
will be, but I can only tell I ran into a lot of quirks before I got
anything converting at all, let alone compile. That may be due to the lack
of documentation (there's a gazing black hole!) or my lack of Java
experience.

Grimace


-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Latyshev [mailto:igor_latyshev57@yahoo.co.uk] 
Sent: dinsdag 2 november 2010 9:25
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

I'd be happy to to try Sharpen out with Java Lucene 3.0.2 this weekend.

Igor

On 01/11/2010 23:56, Michael Mitiaguin wrote:
> Since some folks expressed a desire to help, perhaps, they could grab (
with
> mentioning to the group - to avoid the same work ;  however,  it is
possible
> that  people may come to slightly different conclusions)  various
> cross-translators and report results  to the group.   The main interest, I
> suppose, conversion Java Lucene 3.0.2 which is Java 1.5 and, I believe,
JCLA
> is just not  capable to swallow. For the rest it remains to be seen if
> results are adequate for further refinement. If not, there is a problem (
or
> stumbling block ) how to keep up with Java Lucene.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Ben Martz<be...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> I'm glad that my previous email appears to not have gone through since at
>> first glance this solution appears to be much more mature that what I
have
>> been looking at. Thanks for the links guys.
>>
>>
>> Igor Latyshev wrote:
>>
>>> Sharpen from db4o seems to be an open source tool:
>>>
>>>
http://developer.db4o.com/Blogs/Product/tabid/167/entryid/94/Default.aspx
>>>
>>> (there's a link to source code repository at the bottom of the page)
>>>
>>> Igor
>>>
>>> On 01/11/2010 22:37, Phil Haack wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyone know which translator does the best job? Perhaps we should
decide
>>>> which is our preferred tool for translation (maybe with a #2 and #3
backup)
>>>> and if cost is an issue, we can tackle that together. It seems to me
that
>>>> helping out with the cost is something that a foundation ought to help
with.
>>>> :) But if the Apache foundation doesn't pony up the money for the
software,
>>>> maybe we can ask around. I'd be happy to see if I know any companies
that
>>>> can help with sponsorship to purchase a license for such software.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:32 PM
>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; anmum@online.de
>>>> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>
>>>> Damn, you bet me to it. I was just about to post the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> http://foodformonkeys.blogspot.com/2010/10/ngit.html
>>>>
>>>> It was used here (recently - over the weekend I think) to port JGit
into
>>>> NGit
>>>>
>>>> I'd stick my hand up - having use Lucene.Net on projects from
>>>> multi-million dollar packaged products (Quest Archive Manager) to
websites (
>>>> www.topgear.com) and various other places - but I'm about to leave on a
>>>> 3 month trip away, with limited internet for a lot of it....  So I'll
have
>>>> to see where things are when I get back...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 22:26, Andreas Mummenhoff<an...@online.de>
>>>>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Digy,
>>>>>
>>>>> maybe you know db4o, which is available for Java and .Net. As far as I
>>>>> know, the development is done in Java and the .Net port is done with
>>>>> an automated tool. I don't know if it's public available, one thing I
>>>>> found is
>>>>> (http://developer.db4o.com/Projects/html/projectspaces/db4o_product_de
>>>>> sign/s
>>>>> harpen.html).
>>>>> Anyway, it's for sure that they maintain only one code base and
>>>>> generate the .Net version from the java code, which is even quite
>>>>> .Netified. So it must be possible to do automated conversion!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is also another project on sourceforge that allows to translate
>>>>> java to c#:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another tool I found is
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Product_Details/Java_to_VB_and_CS
>>>>> harp_C
>>>>> onverter_Details.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I know another product of this company, Instant C# / Instant VB, which
>>>>> do a very good job.
>>>>>
>>>>> And of course we can look into http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx,
>>>>> which was proposed from George Aroush.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the afford is worth trying to get an automated tool running (for
>>>>> example taking j2cs and tweak it to support special Lucene-cases). So
>>>>> the next step could be to work not on Lucene.Net directly, but
>>>>> developing an automated translation process. This in turn could open
>>>>> the future for other wishes (for example translating setXXX, getXXX
into
>>>>> properties).
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> And if there is some resistance with commercial tools, I could donate
>>>>> some money for the license, and I'm sure other's will do as well, so a
>>>>> few hundred $ will not be the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>> Von: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>>>>> Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2010 22:32
>>>>> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> Betreff: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>>
>>>>> Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating this
>>>>> process.
>>>>>
>>>>>   How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>>>>> Good question :)
>>>>>
>>>>> DIGY
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
>>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Digy,
>>>>>
>>>>> I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I
>>>>> didn't realize how much effort it was to just get the port working.
>>>>> Hypothetically speaking, are there code translators that do a good
>>>>> enough job of porting the code where there would be time to spend on a
>>>>> tiny bit of clean up to .NET idioms?  That way, for each major
>>>>> version, you do the port and then do a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive my
>>>>> ignorance in this area.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a
>>>>> gargantuan task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the
>>>>> task. ;) However, what automated test coverage do you have. Is it
>>>>> pretty substantial? Is it possible to run the Java Lucene tests
>>>>> against the .NET code? I ask because at the very least, a small amount
>>>>> of deviation form the line by line would be mitigated by such tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
>>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>>
>>>>> I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
>>>>> What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
>>>>> * Searching for differences from the current version and trying to
>>>>> apply those changes to the current code Or
>>>>> * Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code
>>>>>
>>>>> The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
>>>>> The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I
>>>>> haven't found an automated way).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DIGY
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
>>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read
>>>>> the thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the
>>>>> hopes of being more helpful than not :)
>>>>>
>>>>> The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port
>>>>> of Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
>>>>> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>>>>> 1.mbox /raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:
>>>>>
>>>>>   You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With
>>>>>> a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
>>>>>> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
>>>>>> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this
>>>>> approach was
>>>>> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>>>>> 1.mbox
>>>>> /raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):
>>>>>
>>>>>   keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
>>>>>> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the
>>>>>> codebase
>>>>>>
>>>>> over
>>>>>
>>>>>> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement
>>>>>> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation
>>>>> at all (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the
>>>>> Java
>>>>> implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not
>>>>> in its current form.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point.
>>>>> The Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting
>>>>> when it comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying
>>>>> true to some degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some
>>>>> carefully targeted divergence could help breathe new life into the
>>>>> project. Perhaps some sort of hybrid approach that loosens this line
>>>>> by line requirement? Some have mentioned having the internals be
>>>>> closer to the line-by-line but the public surface area fit more .NET.
>>>>> Even parts of the internals could be .NETified to a small degree as
>>>>> long as it's clear where the original source was from and with
>>>>> sufficient test automation.
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java
>>>>> version.
>>>>> Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to
>>>>> do the port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people
>>>>> who want to see the project stay alive.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is
>>>>> important to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Nic Wise
>>>> t.  +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken | http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
>>>> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ | http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
>>>>
>>>>

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Igor Kalders <ig...@wefocus.com>]

As a Lucene.Net user, I'm following the discussion from the side. Funny that
Sharpen now pops up, as I've tried to use it earlier this year to port the
Java CSSParser to C#.

Finally, I had to give up on the mismatch of used libraries, as I could not
map w3c.org to a .NET equivalent, nor was it easy to port that one
altogether. My first thought was you might run into something similar, but
since the current Lucene.Net is already a line-to-line port, I guess not.

Now, I'm really curious as to what the experience with Lucene.Net vs Sharpen
will be, but I can only tell I ran into a lot of quirks before I got
anything converting at all, let alone compile. That may be due to the lack
of documentation (there's a gazing black hole!) or my lack of Java
experience.

Grimace


-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Latyshev [mailto:igor_latyshev57@yahoo.co.uk] 
Sent: dinsdag 2 november 2010 9:25
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

I'd be happy to to try Sharpen out with Java Lucene 3.0.2 this weekend.

Igor

On 01/11/2010 23:56, Michael Mitiaguin wrote:
> Since some folks expressed a desire to help, perhaps, they could grab (
with
> mentioning to the group - to avoid the same work ;  however,  it is
possible
> that  people may come to slightly different conclusions)  various
> cross-translators and report results  to the group.   The main interest, I
> suppose, conversion Java Lucene 3.0.2 which is Java 1.5 and, I believe,
JCLA
> is just not  capable to swallow. For the rest it remains to be seen if
> results are adequate for further refinement. If not, there is a problem (
or
> stumbling block ) how to keep up with Java Lucene.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Ben Martz<be...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> I'm glad that my previous email appears to not have gone through since at
>> first glance this solution appears to be much more mature that what I
have
>> been looking at. Thanks for the links guys.
>>
>>
>> Igor Latyshev wrote:
>>
>>> Sharpen from db4o seems to be an open source tool:
>>>
>>>
http://developer.db4o.com/Blogs/Product/tabid/167/entryid/94/Default.aspx
>>>
>>> (there's a link to source code repository at the bottom of the page)
>>>
>>> Igor
>>>
>>> On 01/11/2010 22:37, Phil Haack wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyone know which translator does the best job? Perhaps we should
decide
>>>> which is our preferred tool for translation (maybe with a #2 and #3
backup)
>>>> and if cost is an issue, we can tackle that together. It seems to me
that
>>>> helping out with the cost is something that a foundation ought to help
with.
>>>> :) But if the Apache foundation doesn't pony up the money for the
software,
>>>> maybe we can ask around. I'd be happy to see if I know any companies
that
>>>> can help with sponsorship to purchase a license for such software.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:32 PM
>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; anmum@online.de
>>>> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>
>>>> Damn, you bet me to it. I was just about to post the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> http://foodformonkeys.blogspot.com/2010/10/ngit.html
>>>>
>>>> It was used here (recently - over the weekend I think) to port JGit
into
>>>> NGit
>>>>
>>>> I'd stick my hand up - having use Lucene.Net on projects from
>>>> multi-million dollar packaged products (Quest Archive Manager) to
websites (
>>>> www.topgear.com) and various other places - but I'm about to leave on a
>>>> 3 month trip away, with limited internet for a lot of it....  So I'll
have
>>>> to see where things are when I get back...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 22:26, Andreas Mummenhoff<an...@online.de>
>>>>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Digy,
>>>>>
>>>>> maybe you know db4o, which is available for Java and .Net. As far as I
>>>>> know, the development is done in Java and the .Net port is done with
>>>>> an automated tool. I don't know if it's public available, one thing I
>>>>> found is
>>>>> (http://developer.db4o.com/Projects/html/projectspaces/db4o_product_de
>>>>> sign/s
>>>>> harpen.html).
>>>>> Anyway, it's for sure that they maintain only one code base and
>>>>> generate the .Net version from the java code, which is even quite
>>>>> .Netified. So it must be possible to do automated conversion!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is also another project on sourceforge that allows to translate
>>>>> java to c#:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another tool I found is
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Product_Details/Java_to_VB_and_CS
>>>>> harp_C
>>>>> onverter_Details.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I know another product of this company, Instant C# / Instant VB, which
>>>>> do a very good job.
>>>>>
>>>>> And of course we can look into http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx,
>>>>> which was proposed from George Aroush.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the afford is worth trying to get an automated tool running (for
>>>>> example taking j2cs and tweak it to support special Lucene-cases). So
>>>>> the next step could be to work not on Lucene.Net directly, but
>>>>> developing an automated translation process. This in turn could open
>>>>> the future for other wishes (for example translating setXXX, getXXX
into
>>>>> properties).
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> And if there is some resistance with commercial tools, I could donate
>>>>> some money for the license, and I'm sure other's will do as well, so a
>>>>> few hundred $ will not be the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>> Von: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>>>>> Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2010 22:32
>>>>> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> Betreff: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>>
>>>>> Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating this
>>>>> process.
>>>>>
>>>>>   How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>>>>> Good question :)
>>>>>
>>>>> DIGY
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
>>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Digy,
>>>>>
>>>>> I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I
>>>>> didn't realize how much effort it was to just get the port working.
>>>>> Hypothetically speaking, are there code translators that do a good
>>>>> enough job of porting the code where there would be time to spend on a
>>>>> tiny bit of clean up to .NET idioms?  That way, for each major
>>>>> version, you do the port and then do a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive my
>>>>> ignorance in this area.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a
>>>>> gargantuan task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the
>>>>> task. ;) However, what automated test coverage do you have. Is it
>>>>> pretty substantial? Is it possible to run the Java Lucene tests
>>>>> against the .NET code? I ask because at the very least, a small amount
>>>>> of deviation form the line by line would be mitigated by such tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
>>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>>
>>>>> I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
>>>>> What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
>>>>> * Searching for differences from the current version and trying to
>>>>> apply those changes to the current code Or
>>>>> * Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code
>>>>>
>>>>> The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
>>>>> The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I
>>>>> haven't found an automated way).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DIGY
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
>>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read
>>>>> the thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the
>>>>> hopes of being more helpful than not :)
>>>>>
>>>>> The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port
>>>>> of Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
>>>>> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>>>>> 1.mbox /raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:
>>>>>
>>>>>   You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With
>>>>>> a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
>>>>>> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
>>>>>> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this
>>>>> approach was
>>>>> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>>>>> 1.mbox
>>>>> /raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):
>>>>>
>>>>>   keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
>>>>>> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the
>>>>>> codebase
>>>>>>
>>>>> over
>>>>>
>>>>>> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement
>>>>>> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation
>>>>> at all (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the
>>>>> Java
>>>>> implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not
>>>>> in its current form.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point.
>>>>> The Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting
>>>>> when it comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying
>>>>> true to some degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some
>>>>> carefully targeted divergence could help breathe new life into the
>>>>> project. Perhaps some sort of hybrid approach that loosens this line
>>>>> by line requirement? Some have mentioned having the internals be
>>>>> closer to the line-by-line but the public surface area fit more .NET.
>>>>> Even parts of the internals could be .NETified to a small degree as
>>>>> long as it's clear where the original source was from and with
>>>>> sufficient test automation.
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java
>>>>> version.
>>>>> Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to
>>>>> do the port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people
>>>>> who want to see the project stay alive.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is
>>>>> important to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Nic Wise
>>>> t.  +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken | http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
>>>> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ | http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
>>>>
>>>>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Igor Latyshev <ig...@yahoo.co.uk>]

I'd be happy to to try Sharpen out with Java Lucene 3.0.2 this weekend.

Igor

On 01/11/2010 23:56, Michael Mitiaguin wrote:
> Since some folks expressed a desire to help, perhaps, they could grab ( with
> mentioning to the group - to avoid the same work ;  however,  it is possible
> that  people may come to slightly different conclusions)  various
> cross-translators and report results  to the group.   The main interest, I
> suppose, conversion Java Lucene 3.0.2 which is Java 1.5 and, I believe, JCLA
> is just not  capable to swallow. For the rest it remains to be seen if
> results are adequate for further refinement. If not, there is a problem ( or
> stumbling block ) how to keep up with Java Lucene.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Ben Martz<be...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> I'm glad that my previous email appears to not have gone through since at
>> first glance this solution appears to be much more mature that what I have
>> been looking at. Thanks for the links guys.
>>
>>
>> Igor Latyshev wrote:
>>
>>> Sharpen from db4o seems to be an open source tool:
>>>
>>> http://developer.db4o.com/Blogs/Product/tabid/167/entryid/94/Default.aspx
>>>
>>> (there's a link to source code repository at the bottom of the page)
>>>
>>> Igor
>>>
>>> On 01/11/2010 22:37, Phil Haack wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyone know which translator does the best job? Perhaps we should decide
>>>> which is our preferred tool for translation (maybe with a #2 and #3 backup)
>>>> and if cost is an issue, we can tackle that together. It seems to me that
>>>> helping out with the cost is something that a foundation ought to help with.
>>>> :) But if the Apache foundation doesn't pony up the money for the software,
>>>> maybe we can ask around. I'd be happy to see if I know any companies that
>>>> can help with sponsorship to purchase a license for such software.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:32 PM
>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; anmum@online.de
>>>> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>
>>>> Damn, you bet me to it. I was just about to post the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> http://foodformonkeys.blogspot.com/2010/10/ngit.html
>>>>
>>>> It was used here (recently - over the weekend I think) to port JGit into
>>>> NGit
>>>>
>>>> I'd stick my hand up - having use Lucene.Net on projects from
>>>> multi-million dollar packaged products (Quest Archive Manager) to websites (
>>>> www.topgear.com) and various other places - but I'm about to leave on a
>>>> 3 month trip away, with limited internet for a lot of it....  So I'll have
>>>> to see where things are when I get back...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 22:26, Andreas Mummenhoff<an...@online.de>
>>>>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Digy,
>>>>>
>>>>> maybe you know db4o, which is available for Java and .Net. As far as I
>>>>> know, the development is done in Java and the .Net port is done with
>>>>> an automated tool. I don't know if it's public available, one thing I
>>>>> found is
>>>>> (http://developer.db4o.com/Projects/html/projectspaces/db4o_product_de
>>>>> sign/s
>>>>> harpen.html).
>>>>> Anyway, it's for sure that they maintain only one code base and
>>>>> generate the .Net version from the java code, which is even quite
>>>>> .Netified. So it must be possible to do automated conversion!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is also another project on sourceforge that allows to translate
>>>>> java to c#:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another tool I found is
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Product_Details/Java_to_VB_and_CS
>>>>> harp_C
>>>>> onverter_Details.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I know another product of this company, Instant C# / Instant VB, which
>>>>> do a very good job.
>>>>>
>>>>> And of course we can look into http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx,
>>>>> which was proposed from George Aroush.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the afford is worth trying to get an automated tool running (for
>>>>> example taking j2cs and tweak it to support special Lucene-cases). So
>>>>> the next step could be to work not on Lucene.Net directly, but
>>>>> developing an automated translation process. This in turn could open
>>>>> the future for other wishes (for example translating setXXX, getXXX into
>>>>> properties).
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> And if there is some resistance with commercial tools, I could donate
>>>>> some money for the license, and I'm sure other's will do as well, so a
>>>>> few hundred $ will not be the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>> Von: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>>>>> Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2010 22:32
>>>>> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> Betreff: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>>
>>>>> Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating this
>>>>> process.
>>>>>
>>>>>   How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>>>>> Good question :)
>>>>>
>>>>> DIGY
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
>>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Digy,
>>>>>
>>>>> I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I
>>>>> didn't realize how much effort it was to just get the port working.
>>>>> Hypothetically speaking, are there code translators that do a good
>>>>> enough job of porting the code where there would be time to spend on a
>>>>> tiny bit of clean up to .NET idioms?  That way, for each major
>>>>> version, you do the port and then do a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive my
>>>>> ignorance in this area.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a
>>>>> gargantuan task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the
>>>>> task. ;) However, what automated test coverage do you have. Is it
>>>>> pretty substantial? Is it possible to run the Java Lucene tests
>>>>> against the .NET code? I ask because at the very least, a small amount
>>>>> of deviation form the line by line would be mitigated by such tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
>>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>>
>>>>> I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
>>>>> What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
>>>>> * Searching for differences from the current version and trying to
>>>>> apply those changes to the current code Or
>>>>> * Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code
>>>>>
>>>>> The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
>>>>> The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I
>>>>> haven't found an automated way).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DIGY
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
>>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read
>>>>> the thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the
>>>>> hopes of being more helpful than not :)
>>>>>
>>>>> The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port
>>>>> of Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
>>>>> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>>>>> 1.mbox /raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:
>>>>>
>>>>>   You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With
>>>>>> a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
>>>>>> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
>>>>>> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this
>>>>> approach was
>>>>> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>>>>> 1.mbox
>>>>> /raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):
>>>>>
>>>>>   keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
>>>>>> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the
>>>>>> codebase
>>>>>>
>>>>> over
>>>>>
>>>>>> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement
>>>>>> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation
>>>>> at all (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the
>>>>> Java
>>>>> implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not
>>>>> in its current form.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point.
>>>>> The Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting
>>>>> when it comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying
>>>>> true to some degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some
>>>>> carefully targeted divergence could help breathe new life into the
>>>>> project. Perhaps some sort of hybrid approach that loosens this line
>>>>> by line requirement? Some have mentioned having the internals be
>>>>> closer to the line-by-line but the public surface area fit more .NET.
>>>>> Even parts of the internals could be .NETified to a small degree as
>>>>> long as it's clear where the original source was from and with
>>>>> sufficient test automation.
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java
>>>>> version.
>>>>> Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to
>>>>> do the port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people
>>>>> who want to see the project stay alive.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is
>>>>> important to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Nic Wise
>>>> t.  +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken | http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
>>>> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ | http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
>>>>
>>>>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Michael Mitiaguin <mi...@gmail.com>]

Since some folks expressed a desire to help, perhaps, they could grab ( with
mentioning to the group - to avoid the same work ;  however,  it is possible
that  people may come to slightly different conclusions)  various
cross-translators and report results  to the group.   The main interest, I
suppose, conversion Java Lucene 3.0.2 which is Java 1.5 and, I believe, JCLA
is just not  capable to swallow. For the rest it remains to be seen if
results are adequate for further refinement. If not, there is a problem ( or
stumbling block ) how to keep up with Java Lucene.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Ben Martz <be...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm glad that my previous email appears to not have gone through since at
> first glance this solution appears to be much more mature that what I have
> been looking at. Thanks for the links guys.
>
>
> Igor Latyshev wrote:
>
>>
>> Sharpen from db4o seems to be an open source tool:
>>
>> http://developer.db4o.com/Blogs/Product/tabid/167/entryid/94/Default.aspx
>>
>> (there's a link to source code repository at the bottom of the page)
>>
>> Igor
>>
>> On 01/11/2010 22:37, Phil Haack wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone know which translator does the best job? Perhaps we should decide
>>> which is our preferred tool for translation (maybe with a #2 and #3 backup)
>>> and if cost is an issue, we can tackle that together. It seems to me that
>>> helping out with the cost is something that a foundation ought to help with.
>>> :) But if the Apache foundation doesn't pony up the money for the software,
>>> maybe we can ask around. I'd be happy to see if I know any companies that
>>> can help with sponsorship to purchase a license for such software.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:32 PM
>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; anmum@online.de
>>> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>
>>> Damn, you bet me to it. I was just about to post the same thing.
>>>
>>> http://foodformonkeys.blogspot.com/2010/10/ngit.html
>>>
>>> It was used here (recently - over the weekend I think) to port JGit into
>>> NGit
>>>
>>> I'd stick my hand up - having use Lucene.Net on projects from
>>> multi-million dollar packaged products (Quest Archive Manager) to websites (
>>> www.topgear.com) and various other places - but I'm about to leave on a
>>> 3 month trip away, with limited internet for a lot of it....  So I'll have
>>> to see where things are when I get back...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 22:26, Andreas Mummenhoff<an...@online.de>
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Digy,
>>>>
>>>> maybe you know db4o, which is available for Java and .Net. As far as I
>>>> know, the development is done in Java and the .Net port is done with
>>>> an automated tool. I don't know if it's public available, one thing I
>>>> found is
>>>> (http://developer.db4o.com/Projects/html/projectspaces/db4o_product_de
>>>> sign/s
>>>> harpen.html).
>>>> Anyway, it's for sure that they maintain only one code base and
>>>> generate the .Net version from the java code, which is even quite
>>>> .Netified. So it must be possible to do automated conversion!!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is also another project on sourceforge that allows to translate
>>>> java to c#:
>>>>
>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another tool I found is
>>>>
>>>> http://tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Product_Details/Java_to_VB_and_CS
>>>> harp_C
>>>> onverter_Details.html
>>>>
>>>> I know another product of this company, Instant C# / Instant VB, which
>>>> do a very good job.
>>>>
>>>> And of course we can look into http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx,
>>>> which was proposed from George Aroush.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the afford is worth trying to get an automated tool running (for
>>>> example taking j2cs and tweak it to support special Lucene-cases). So
>>>> the next step could be to work not on Lucene.Net directly, but
>>>> developing an automated translation process. This in turn could open
>>>> the future for other wishes (for example translating setXXX, getXXX into
>>>> properties).
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> And if there is some resistance with commercial tools, I could donate
>>>> some money for the license, and I'm sure other's will do as well, so a
>>>> few hundred $ will not be the problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andreas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> Von: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>>>> Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2010 22:32
>>>> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>> Betreff: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>
>>>> Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating this
>>>> process.
>>>>
>>>>  How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>>>>>
>>>> Good question :)
>>>>
>>>> DIGY
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>
>>>> Hi Digy,
>>>>
>>>> I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I
>>>> didn't realize how much effort it was to just get the port working.
>>>> Hypothetically speaking, are there code translators that do a good
>>>> enough job of porting the code where there would be time to spend on a
>>>> tiny bit of clean up to .NET idioms?  That way, for each major
>>>> version, you do the port and then do a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive my
>>>> ignorance in this area.
>>>>
>>>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>>>>
>>>> Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a
>>>> gargantuan task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the
>>>> task. ;) However, what automated test coverage do you have. Is it
>>>> pretty substantial? Is it possible to run the Java Lucene tests
>>>> against the .NET code? I ask because at the very least, a small amount
>>>> of deviation form the line by line would be mitigated by such tests.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>
>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>
>>>> I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
>>>> What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
>>>> * Searching for differences from the current version and trying to
>>>> apply those changes to the current code Or
>>>> * Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code
>>>>
>>>> The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
>>>> The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I
>>>> haven't found an automated way).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DIGY
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
>>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read
>>>> the thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the
>>>> hopes of being more helpful than not :)
>>>>
>>>> The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port
>>>> of Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
>>>> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>>>> 1.mbox /raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:
>>>>
>>>>  You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With
>>>>> a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
>>>>> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
>>>>> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
>>>>>
>>>> As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this
>>>> approach was
>>>> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>>>> 1.mbox
>>>> /raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):
>>>>
>>>>  keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
>>>>> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the
>>>>> codebase
>>>>>
>>>> over
>>>>
>>>>> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement
>>>>> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.
>>>>>
>>>> But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation
>>>> at all (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the
>>>> Java
>>>> implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not
>>>> in its current form.
>>>>
>>>> But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point.
>>>> The Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting
>>>> when it comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying
>>>> true to some degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some
>>>> carefully targeted divergence could help breathe new life into the
>>>> project. Perhaps some sort of hybrid approach that loosens this line
>>>> by line requirement? Some have mentioned having the internals be
>>>> closer to the line-by-line but the public surface area fit more .NET.
>>>> Even parts of the internals could be .NETified to a small degree as
>>>> long as it's clear where the original source was from and with
>>>> sufficient test automation.
>>>>
>>>> After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java
>>>> version.
>>>> Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to
>>>> do the port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people
>>>> who want to see the project stay alive.
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is
>>>> important to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Nic Wise
>>> t.  +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken | http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
>>> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ | http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Ben Martz <be...@gmail.com>]

I'm glad that my previous email appears to not have gone through since at first glance this solution appears to be much more mature that what I have been looking at. Thanks for the links guys.

Igor Latyshev wrote:
>
> Sharpen from db4o seems to be an open source tool:
>
> http://developer.db4o.com/Blogs/Product/tabid/167/entryid/94/Default.aspx
>
> (there's a link to source code repository at the bottom of the page)
>
> Igor
>
> On 01/11/2010 22:37, Phil Haack wrote:
>> Anyone know which translator does the best job? Perhaps we should decide which is our preferred tool for translation (maybe with a #2 and #3 backup) and if cost is an issue, we can tackle that together. It seems to me that helping out with the cost is something that a foundation ought to help with. :) But if the Apache foundation doesn't pony up the money for the software, maybe we can ask around. I'd be happy to see if I know any companies that can help with sponsorship to purchase a license for such software.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:32 PM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; anmum@online.de
>> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>
>> Damn, you bet me to it. I was just about to post the same thing.
>>
>> http://foodformonkeys.blogspot.com/2010/10/ngit.html
>>
>> It was used here (recently - over the weekend I think) to port JGit into NGit
>>
>> I'd stick my hand up - having use Lucene.Net on projects from multi-million dollar packaged products (Quest Archive Manager) to websites (www.topgear.com) and various other places - but I'm about to leave on a 3 month trip away, with limited internet for a lot of it....  So I'll have to see where things are when I get back...
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 22:26, Andreas Mummenhoff<an...@online.de>  wrote:
>>> Hi Digy,
>>>
>>> maybe you know db4o, which is available for Java and .Net. As far as I
>>> know, the development is done in Java and the .Net port is done with
>>> an automated tool. I don't know if it's public available, one thing I
>>> found is
>>> (http://developer.db4o.com/Projects/html/projectspaces/db4o_product_de
>>> sign/s
>>> harpen.html).
>>> Anyway, it's for sure that they maintain only one code base and
>>> generate the .Net version from the java code, which is even quite
>>> .Netified. So it must be possible to do automated conversion!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> There is also another project on sourceforge that allows to translate
>>> java to c#:
>>>
>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/
>>>
>>>
>>> Another tool I found is
>>>
>>> http://tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Product_Details/Java_to_VB_and_CS
>>> harp_C
>>> onverter_Details.html
>>>
>>> I know another product of this company, Instant C# / Instant VB, which
>>> do a very good job.
>>>
>>> And of course we can look into http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx,
>>> which was proposed from George Aroush.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe the afford is worth trying to get an automated tool running (for
>>> example taking j2cs and tweak it to support special Lucene-cases). So
>>> the next step could be to work not on Lucene.Net directly, but
>>> developing an automated translation process. This in turn could open
>>> the future for other wishes (for example translating setXXX, getXXX into properties).
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> And if there is some resistance with commercial tools, I could donate
>>> some money for the license, and I'm sure other's will do as well, so a
>>> few hundred $ will not be the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>>> Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2010 22:32
>>> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>> Betreff: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>
>>> Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating this
>>> process.
>>>
>>>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>>> Good question :)
>>>
>>> DIGY
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>
>>> Hi Digy,
>>>
>>> I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I
>>> didn't realize how much effort it was to just get the port working.
>>> Hypothetically speaking, are there code translators that do a good
>>> enough job of porting the code where there would be time to spend on a
>>> tiny bit of clean up to .NET idioms?  That way, for each major
>>> version, you do the port and then do a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive my ignorance in this area.
>>>
>>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>>>
>>> Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a
>>> gargantuan task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the
>>> task. ;) However, what automated test coverage do you have. Is it
>>> pretty substantial? Is it possible to run the Java Lucene tests
>>> against the .NET code? I ask because at the very least, a small amount
>>> of deviation form the line by line would be mitigated by such tests.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>
>>> Hi Phil,
>>>
>>> I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
>>> What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
>>> * Searching for differences from the current version and trying to
>>> apply those changes to the current code Or
>>> * Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code
>>>
>>> The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
>>> The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I
>>> haven't found an automated way).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> DIGY
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read
>>> the thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the
>>> hopes of being more helpful than not :)
>>>
>>> The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port
>>> of Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
>>> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>>> 1.mbox /raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:
>>>
>>>> You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With
>>>> a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
>>>> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
>>>> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
>>> As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this
>>> approach was
>>> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>>> 1.mbox
>>> /raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):
>>>
>>>> keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
>>>> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the
>>>> codebase
>>> over
>>>> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement
>>>> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.
>>> But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation
>>> at all (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the
>>> Java
>>> implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not
>>> in its current form.
>>>
>>> But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point.
>>> The Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting
>>> when it comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying
>>> true to some degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some
>>> carefully targeted divergence could help breathe new life into the
>>> project. Perhaps some sort of hybrid approach that loosens this line
>>> by line requirement? Some have mentioned having the internals be
>>> closer to the line-by-line but the public surface area fit more .NET.
>>> Even parts of the internals could be .NETified to a small degree as
>>> long as it's clear where the original source was from and with sufficient test automation.
>>>
>>> After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java version.
>>> Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to
>>> do the port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people
>>> who want to see the project stay alive.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is
>>> important to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Nic Wise
>> t.  +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken | http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
>> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ | http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
>>
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Ben Martz <be...@gmail.com>]

I'm glad that my previous email appears to not have gone through since at first glance this solution appears to be much more mature that what I have been looking at. Thanks for the links guys.

Igor Latyshev wrote:
>
> Sharpen from db4o seems to be an open source tool:
>
> http://developer.db4o.com/Blogs/Product/tabid/167/entryid/94/Default.aspx
>
> (there's a link to source code repository at the bottom of the page)
>
> Igor
>
> On 01/11/2010 22:37, Phil Haack wrote:
>> Anyone know which translator does the best job? Perhaps we should decide which is our preferred tool for translation (maybe with a #2 and #3 backup) and if cost is an issue, we can tackle that together. It seems to me that helping out with the cost is something that a foundation ought to help with. :) But if the Apache foundation doesn't pony up the money for the software, maybe we can ask around. I'd be happy to see if I know any companies that can help with sponsorship to purchase a license for such software.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:32 PM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; anmum@online.de
>> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>
>> Damn, you bet me to it. I was just about to post the same thing.
>>
>> http://foodformonkeys.blogspot.com/2010/10/ngit.html
>>
>> It was used here (recently - over the weekend I think) to port JGit into NGit
>>
>> I'd stick my hand up - having use Lucene.Net on projects from multi-million dollar packaged products (Quest Archive Manager) to websites (www.topgear.com) and various other places - but I'm about to leave on a 3 month trip away, with limited internet for a lot of it....  So I'll have to see where things are when I get back...
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 22:26, Andreas Mummenhoff<an...@online.de>  wrote:
>>> Hi Digy,
>>>
>>> maybe you know db4o, which is available for Java and .Net. As far as I
>>> know, the development is done in Java and the .Net port is done with
>>> an automated tool. I don't know if it's public available, one thing I
>>> found is
>>> (http://developer.db4o.com/Projects/html/projectspaces/db4o_product_de
>>> sign/s
>>> harpen.html).
>>> Anyway, it's for sure that they maintain only one code base and
>>> generate the .Net version from the java code, which is even quite
>>> .Netified. So it must be possible to do automated conversion!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> There is also another project on sourceforge that allows to translate
>>> java to c#:
>>>
>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/
>>>
>>>
>>> Another tool I found is
>>>
>>> http://tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Product_Details/Java_to_VB_and_CS
>>> harp_C
>>> onverter_Details.html
>>>
>>> I know another product of this company, Instant C# / Instant VB, which
>>> do a very good job.
>>>
>>> And of course we can look into http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx,
>>> which was proposed from George Aroush.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe the afford is worth trying to get an automated tool running (for
>>> example taking j2cs and tweak it to support special Lucene-cases). So
>>> the next step could be to work not on Lucene.Net directly, but
>>> developing an automated translation process. This in turn could open
>>> the future for other wishes (for example translating setXXX, getXXX into properties).
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> And if there is some resistance with commercial tools, I could donate
>>> some money for the license, and I'm sure other's will do as well, so a
>>> few hundred $ will not be the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>>> Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2010 22:32
>>> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>> Betreff: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>
>>> Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating this
>>> process.
>>>
>>>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>>> Good question :)
>>>
>>> DIGY
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>
>>> Hi Digy,
>>>
>>> I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I
>>> didn't realize how much effort it was to just get the port working.
>>> Hypothetically speaking, are there code translators that do a good
>>> enough job of porting the code where there would be time to spend on a
>>> tiny bit of clean up to .NET idioms?  That way, for each major
>>> version, you do the port and then do a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive my ignorance in this area.
>>>
>>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>>>
>>> Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a
>>> gargantuan task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the
>>> task. ;) However, what automated test coverage do you have. Is it
>>> pretty substantial? Is it possible to run the Java Lucene tests
>>> against the .NET code? I ask because at the very least, a small amount
>>> of deviation form the line by line would be mitigated by such tests.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>
>>> Hi Phil,
>>>
>>> I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
>>> What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
>>> * Searching for differences from the current version and trying to
>>> apply those changes to the current code Or
>>> * Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code
>>>
>>> The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
>>> The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I
>>> haven't found an automated way).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> DIGY
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read
>>> the thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the
>>> hopes of being more helpful than not :)
>>>
>>> The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port
>>> of Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
>>> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>>> 1.mbox /raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:
>>>
>>>> You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With
>>>> a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
>>>> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
>>>> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
>>> As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this
>>> approach was
>>> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>>> 1.mbox
>>> /raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):
>>>
>>>> keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
>>>> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the
>>>> codebase
>>> over
>>>> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement
>>>> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.
>>> But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation
>>> at all (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the
>>> Java
>>> implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not
>>> in its current form.
>>>
>>> But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point.
>>> The Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting
>>> when it comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying
>>> true to some degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some
>>> carefully targeted divergence could help breathe new life into the
>>> project. Perhaps some sort of hybrid approach that loosens this line
>>> by line requirement? Some have mentioned having the internals be
>>> closer to the line-by-line but the public surface area fit more .NET.
>>> Even parts of the internals could be .NETified to a small degree as
>>> long as it's clear where the original source was from and with sufficient test automation.
>>>
>>> After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java version.
>>> Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to
>>> do the port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people
>>> who want to see the project stay alive.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is
>>> important to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Nic Wise
>> t.  +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken | http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
>> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ | http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
>>
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Igor Latyshev <ig...@yahoo.co.uk>]

Sharpen from db4o seems to be an open source tool:

http://developer.db4o.com/Blogs/Product/tabid/167/entryid/94/Default.aspx

(there's a link to source code repository at the bottom of the page)

Igor

On 01/11/2010 22:37, Phil Haack wrote:
> Anyone know which translator does the best job? Perhaps we should decide which is our preferred tool for translation (maybe with a #2 and #3 backup) and if cost is an issue, we can tackle that together. It seems to me that helping out with the cost is something that a foundation ought to help with. :) But if the Apache foundation doesn't pony up the money for the software, maybe we can ask around. I'd be happy to see if I know any companies that can help with sponsorship to purchase a license for such software.
>
> Phil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:32 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; anmum@online.de
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Damn, you bet me to it. I was just about to post the same thing.
>
> http://foodformonkeys.blogspot.com/2010/10/ngit.html
>
> It was used here (recently - over the weekend I think) to port JGit into NGit
>
> I'd stick my hand up - having use Lucene.Net on projects from multi-million dollar packaged products (Quest Archive Manager) to websites (www.topgear.com) and various other places - but I'm about to leave on a 3 month trip away, with limited internet for a lot of it....  So I'll have to see where things are when I get back...
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 22:26, Andreas Mummenhoff<an...@online.de>  wrote:
>> Hi Digy,
>>
>> maybe you know db4o, which is available for Java and .Net. As far as I
>> know, the development is done in Java and the .Net port is done with
>> an automated tool. I don't know if it's public available, one thing I
>> found is
>> (http://developer.db4o.com/Projects/html/projectspaces/db4o_product_de
>> sign/s
>> harpen.html).
>> Anyway, it's for sure that they maintain only one code base and
>> generate the .Net version from the java code, which is even quite
>> .Netified. So it must be possible to do automated conversion!!!
>>
>>
>> There is also another project on sourceforge that allows to translate
>> java to c#:
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/
>>
>>
>> Another tool I found is
>>
>> http://tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Product_Details/Java_to_VB_and_CS
>> harp_C
>> onverter_Details.html
>>
>> I know another product of this company, Instant C# / Instant VB, which
>> do a very good job.
>>
>> And of course we can look into http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx,
>> which was proposed from George Aroush.
>>
>>
>> Maybe the afford is worth trying to get an automated tool running (for
>> example taking j2cs and tweak it to support special Lucene-cases). So
>> the next step could be to work not on Lucene.Net directly, but
>> developing an automated translation process. This in turn could open
>> the future for other wishes (for example translating setXXX, getXXX into properties).
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> And if there is some resistance with commercial tools, I could donate
>> some money for the license, and I'm sure other's will do as well, so a
>> few hundred $ will not be the problem.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>> Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2010 22:32
>> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Betreff: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>
>> Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating this
>> process.
>>
>>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>> Good question :)
>>
>> DIGY
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>
>> Hi Digy,
>>
>> I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I
>> didn't realize how much effort it was to just get the port working.
>> Hypothetically speaking, are there code translators that do a good
>> enough job of porting the code where there would be time to spend on a
>> tiny bit of clean up to .NET idioms?  That way, for each major
>> version, you do the port and then do a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive my ignorance in this area.
>>
>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>>
>> Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a
>> gargantuan task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the
>> task. ;) However, what automated test coverage do you have. Is it
>> pretty substantial? Is it possible to run the Java Lucene tests
>> against the .NET code? I ask because at the very least, a small amount
>> of deviation form the line by line would be mitigated by such tests.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
>> What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
>> * Searching for differences from the current version and trying to
>> apply those changes to the current code Or
>> * Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code
>>
>> The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
>> The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I
>> haven't found an automated way).
>>
>>
>>
>> DIGY
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read
>> the thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the
>> hopes of being more helpful than not :)
>>
>> The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port
>> of Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
>> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>> 1.mbox /raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:
>>
>>> You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With
>>> a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
>>> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
>>> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
>> As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this
>> approach was
>> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
>> 1.mbox
>> /raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):
>>
>>> keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
>>> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the
>>> codebase
>> over
>>> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement
>>> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.
>> But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation
>> at all (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the
>> Java
>> implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not
>> in its current form.
>>
>> But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point.
>> The Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting
>> when it comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying
>> true to some degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some
>> carefully targeted divergence could help breathe new life into the
>> project. Perhaps some sort of hybrid approach that loosens this line
>> by line requirement? Some have mentioned having the internals be
>> closer to the line-by-line but the public surface area fit more .NET.
>> Even parts of the internals could be .NETified to a small degree as
>> long as it's clear where the original source was from and with sufficient test automation.
>>
>> After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java version.
>> Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to
>> do the port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people
>> who want to see the project stay alive.
>>
>> I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is
>> important to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Nic Wise
> t.  +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken | http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ | http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
>

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Phil Haack <ph...@microsoft.com>]

Anyone know which translator does the best job? Perhaps we should decide which is our preferred tool for translation (maybe with a #2 and #3 backup) and if cost is an issue, we can tackle that together. It seems to me that helping out with the cost is something that a foundation ought to help with. :) But if the Apache foundation doesn't pony up the money for the software, maybe we can ask around. I'd be happy to see if I know any companies that can help with sponsorship to purchase a license for such software.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:32 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; anmum@online.de
Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

Damn, you bet me to it. I was just about to post the same thing.

http://foodformonkeys.blogspot.com/2010/10/ngit.html

It was used here (recently - over the weekend I think) to port JGit into NGit

I'd stick my hand up - having use Lucene.Net on projects from multi-million dollar packaged products (Quest Archive Manager) to websites (www.topgear.com) and various other places - but I'm about to leave on a 3 month trip away, with limited internet for a lot of it....  So I'll have to see where things are when I get back...


On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 22:26, Andreas Mummenhoff <an...@online.de> wrote:
> Hi Digy,
>
> maybe you know db4o, which is available for Java and .Net. As far as I 
> know, the development is done in Java and the .Net port is done with 
> an automated tool. I don't know if it's public available, one thing I 
> found is 
> (http://developer.db4o.com/Projects/html/projectspaces/db4o_product_de
> sign/s
> harpen.html).
> Anyway, it's for sure that they maintain only one code base and 
> generate the .Net version from the java code, which is even quite 
> .Netified. So it must be possible to do automated conversion!!!
>
>
> There is also another project on sourceforge that allows to translate 
> java to c#:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/
>
>
> Another tool I found is
>
> http://tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Product_Details/Java_to_VB_and_CS
> harp_C
> onverter_Details.html
>
> I know another product of this company, Instant C# / Instant VB, which 
> do a very good job.
>
> And of course we can look into http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx, 
> which was proposed from George Aroush.
>
>
> Maybe the afford is worth trying to get an automated tool running (for 
> example taking j2cs and tweak it to support special Lucene-cases). So 
> the next step could be to work not on Lucene.Net directly, but 
> developing an automated translation process. This in turn could open 
> the future for other wishes (for example translating setXXX, getXXX into properties).
>
> What do you think?
>
> And if there is some resistance with commercial tools, I could donate 
> some money for the license, and I'm sure other's will do as well, so a 
> few hundred $ will not be the problem.
>
>
>
>
> Andreas
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2010 22:32
> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Betreff: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating this 
> process.
>
>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
> Good question :)
>
> DIGY
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Hi Digy,
>
> I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I 
> didn't realize how much effort it was to just get the port working. 
> Hypothetically speaking, are there code translators that do a good 
> enough job of porting the code where there would be time to spend on a 
> tiny bit of clean up to .NET idioms?  That way, for each major 
> version, you do the port and then do a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive my ignorance in this area.
>
> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>
> Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a 
> gargantuan task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the 
> task. ;) However, what automated test coverage do you have. Is it 
> pretty substantial? Is it possible to run the Java Lucene tests 
> against the .NET code? I ask because at the very least, a small amount 
> of deviation form the line by line would be mitigated by such tests.
>
> Phil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
> What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
> * Searching for differences from the current version and trying to 
> apply those changes to the current code Or
> * Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code
>
> The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
> The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I 
> haven't found an automated way).
>
>
>
> DIGY
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Hi All,
>
> Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read 
> the thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the 
> hopes of being more helpful than not :)
>
> The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port 
> of Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan 
> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
> 1.mbox /raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:
>
>> You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With 
>> a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
>> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in 
>> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
>
> As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this 
> approach was 
> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/20101
> 1.mbox
> /raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):
>
>> keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the 
>> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the 
>> codebase
> over
>> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement 
>> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.
>
> But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation 
> at all (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the 
> Java
> implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not 
> in its current form.
>
> But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point. 
> The Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting 
> when it comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying 
> true to some degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some 
> carefully targeted divergence could help breathe new life into the 
> project. Perhaps some sort of hybrid approach that loosens this line 
> by line requirement? Some have mentioned having the internals be 
> closer to the line-by-line but the public surface area fit more .NET. 
> Even parts of the internals could be .NETified to a small degree as 
> long as it's clear where the original source was from and with sufficient test automation.
>
> After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java version.
> Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to 
> do the port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people 
> who want to see the project stay alive.
>
> I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is 
> important to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.
>
> Phil
>
>
>



--
Nic Wise
t.  +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken | http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ | http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Nic Wise <ni...@fastchicken.co.nz>]

Damn, you bet me to it. I was just about to post the same thing.

http://foodformonkeys.blogspot.com/2010/10/ngit.html

It was used here (recently - over the weekend I think) to port JGit into NGit

I'd stick my hand up - having use Lucene.Net on projects from
multi-million dollar packaged products (Quest Archive Manager) to
websites (www.topgear.com) and various other places - but I'm about to
leave on a 3 month trip away, with limited internet for a lot of
it....  So I'll have to see where things are when I get back...


On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 22:26, Andreas Mummenhoff <an...@online.de> wrote:
> Hi Digy,
>
> maybe you know db4o, which is available for Java and .Net. As far as I know,
> the development is done in Java and the .Net port is done with an automated
> tool. I don't know if it's public available, one thing I found is
> (http://developer.db4o.com/Projects/html/projectspaces/db4o_product_design/s
> harpen.html).
> Anyway, it's for sure that they maintain only one code base and generate the
> .Net version from the java code, which is even quite .Netified. So it must
> be possible to do automated conversion!!!
>
>
> There is also another project on sourceforge that allows to translate java
> to c#:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/
>
>
> Another tool I found is
>
> http://tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Product_Details/Java_to_VB_and_CSharp_C
> onverter_Details.html
>
> I know another product of this company, Instant C# / Instant VB, which do a
> very good job.
>
> And of course we can look into http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx, which
> was proposed from George Aroush.
>
>
> Maybe the afford is worth trying to get an automated tool running (for
> example taking j2cs and tweak it to support special Lucene-cases). So the
> next step could be to work not on Lucene.Net directly, but developing an
> automated translation process. This in turn could open the future for other
> wishes (for example translating setXXX, getXXX into properties).
>
> What do you think?
>
> And if there is some resistance with commercial tools, I could donate some
> money for the license, and I'm sure other's will do as well, so a few
> hundred $ will not be the problem.
>
>
>
>
> Andreas
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2010 22:32
> An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Betreff: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating this
> process.
>
>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
> Good question :)
>
> DIGY
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Hi Digy,
>
> I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I didn't
> realize how much effort it was to just get the port working. Hypothetically
> speaking, are there code translators that do a good enough job of porting
> the code where there would be time to spend on a tiny bit of clean up to
> .NET idioms?  That way, for each major version, you do the port and then do
> a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive my ignorance in this area.
>
> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>
> Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a gargantuan
> task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the task. ;) However,
> what automated test coverage do you have. Is it pretty substantial? Is it
> possible to run the Java Lucene tests against the .NET code? I ask because
> at the very least, a small amount of deviation form the line by line would
> be mitigated by such tests.
>
> Phil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
> What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
> * Searching for differences from the current version and trying to apply
> those changes to the current code Or
> * Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code
>
> The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
> The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I haven't
> found an automated way).
>
>
>
> DIGY
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Hi All,
>
> Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read the
> thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the hopes of
> being more helpful than not :)
>
> The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port of
> Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox
> /raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:
>
>> You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With a
>> .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
>> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
>> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
>
> As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this
> approach was
> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox
> /raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):
>
>> keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
>> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the codebase
> over
>> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement
>> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.
>
> But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation at all
> (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the Java
> implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not in its
> current form.
>
> But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point. The
> Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting when it
> comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying true to some
> degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some carefully targeted
> divergence could help breathe new life into the project. Perhaps some sort
> of hybrid approach that loosens this line by line requirement? Some have
> mentioned having the internals be closer to the line-by-line but the public
> surface area fit more .NET. Even parts of the internals could be .NETified
> to a small degree as long as it's clear where the original source was from
> and with sufficient test automation.
>
> After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java version.
> Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to do the
> port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people who want to
> see the project stay alive.
>
> I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is important
> to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.
>
> Phil
>
>
>



-- 
Nic Wise
t.  +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken | http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ | http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise

AW: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Andreas Mummenhoff <an...@online.de>]

Hi Digy,

maybe you know db4o, which is available for Java and .Net. As far as I know,
the development is done in Java and the .Net port is done with an automated
tool. I don't know if it's public available, one thing I found is
(http://developer.db4o.com/Projects/html/projectspaces/db4o_product_design/s
harpen.html).
Anyway, it's for sure that they maintain only one code base and generate the
.Net version from the java code, which is even quite .Netified. So it must
be possible to do automated conversion!!!


There is also another project on sourceforge that allows to translate java
to c#:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/


Another tool I found is 

http://tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Product_Details/Java_to_VB_and_CSharp_C
onverter_Details.html

I know another product of this company, Instant C# / Instant VB, which do a
very good job.

And of course we can look into http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx, which
was proposed from George Aroush.


Maybe the afford is worth trying to get an automated tool running (for
example taking j2cs and tweak it to support special Lucene-cases). So the
next step could be to work not on Lucene.Net directly, but developing an
automated translation process. This in turn could open the future for other
wishes (for example translating setXXX, getXXX into properties).

What do you think?

And if there is some resistance with commercial tools, I could donate some
money for the license, and I'm sure other's will do as well, so a few
hundred $ will not be the problem.




Andreas


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com] 
Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2010 22:32
An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Betreff: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating this
process. 

> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
Good question :)

DIGY


-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

Hi Digy,

I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I didn't
realize how much effort it was to just get the port working. Hypothetically
speaking, are there code translators that do a good enough job of porting
the code where there would be time to spend on a tiny bit of clean up to
.NET idioms?  That way, for each major version, you do the port and then do
a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive my ignorance in this area.

How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?

Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a gargantuan
task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the task. ;) However,
what automated test coverage do you have. Is it pretty substantial? Is it
possible to run the Java Lucene tests against the .NET code? I ask because
at the very least, a small amount of deviation form the line by line would
be mitigated by such tests.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

Hi Phil,

I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
* Searching for differences from the current version and trying to apply
those changes to the current code Or
* Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code

The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I haven't
found an automated way).



DIGY




-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status

Hi All,

Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read the
thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the hopes of
being more helpful than not :)

The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port of
Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
(http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox
/raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:

> You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With a 
> .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in 
> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.

As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this
approach was
(http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox
/raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):

> keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the 
> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the codebase
over
> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement 
> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.

But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation at all
(and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the Java
implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not in its
current form.

But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point. The
Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting when it
comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying true to some
degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some carefully targeted
divergence could help breathe new life into the project. Perhaps some sort
of hybrid approach that loosens this line by line requirement? Some have
mentioned having the internals be closer to the line-by-line but the public
surface area fit more .NET. Even parts of the internals could be .NETified
to a small degree as long as it's clear where the original source was from
and with sufficient test automation.

After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java version.
Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to do the
port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people who want to
see the project stay alive.

I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is important
to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.

Phil

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Ciaran Roarty <ci...@gmail.com>]

I feel it is instructive to post a similar email thread from 2007 into the mix:

http://www.mail-archive.com/lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg00505.html

We are literally having the same discussion again. In the interim,
good work has been done but it has faltered again.

Let me be clear that I fully appreciate the effort involved and I am
very grateful for all the work that has been done on Lucene.Net ( name
correct this time )

Ciaran



On 1 Nov 2010, at 21:33, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating this
> process.
>
>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
> Good question :)
>
> DIGY
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Hi Digy,
>
> I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I didn't
> realize how much effort it was to just get the port working. Hypothetically
> speaking, are there code translators that do a good enough job of porting
> the code where there would be time to spend on a tiny bit of clean up to
> .NET idioms?  That way, for each major version, you do the port and then do
> a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive my ignorance in this area.
>
> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>
> Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a gargantuan
> task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the task. ;) However,
> what automated test coverage do you have. Is it pretty substantial? Is it
> possible to run the Java Lucene tests against the .NET code? I ask because
> at the very least, a small amount of deviation form the line by line would
> be mitigated by such tests.
>
> Phil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
> What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
> * Searching for differences from the current version and trying to apply
> those changes to the current code Or
> * Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code
>
> The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
> The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I haven't
> found an automated way).
>
>
>
> DIGY
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Hi All,
>
> Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read the
> thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the hopes of
> being more helpful than not :)
>
> The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port of
> Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox
> /raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:
>
>> You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With a
>> .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
>> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
>> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
>
> As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this
> approach was
> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox
> /raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):
>
>> keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
>> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the codebase
> over
>> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement
>> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.
>
> But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation at all
> (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the Java
> implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not in its
> current form.
>
> But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point. The
> Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting when it
> comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying true to some
> degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some carefully targeted
> divergence could help breathe new life into the project. Perhaps some sort
> of hybrid approach that loosens this line by line requirement? Some have
> mentioned having the internals be closer to the line-by-line but the public
> surface area fit more .NET. Even parts of the internals could be .NETified
> to a small degree as long as it's clear where the original source was from
> and with sufficient test automation.
>
> After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java version.
> Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to do the
> port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people who want to
> see the project stay alive.
>
> I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is important
> to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.
>
> Phil
>
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Ben Martz <be...@gmail.com>]

I've recently been struggling to find a more efficient and deterministic method for performing a reasonable conversion from Java to C#. Has anyone else looked at the old OSS project XES (http://xes.sourceforge.net/) or found anything similar that would provide a good starting point?

My basic thought process being that it could potentially be more efficient to put our brains together and spend time up-front to develop an effective set of language transformations rather than struggling to port each version of Lucene Java from scratch using a combination of proprietary tools and scripts. This could also potentially open up more opportunities for people such as myself to help with the process since it would be more transparent.

I'm not debating that a .NET-specific branch from Lucene.Net may be more useful for some people but I fall in the camp of desiring a maintainable line-by-line port from Lucene Java. I also believe this is the only direction that would still fall under the guidelines of an "official" Apache Lucene sub-project (the original issue raised by Grant).

Just an idea anyway.

Cheers,
Ben

Digy wrote:
> Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating this
> process.
> ...
>> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
> Good question :)
>
> DIGY

AW: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Andreas Mummenhoff <an...@online.de>]

Hi Digy,

maybe you know db4o, which is available for Java and .Net. As far as I know,
the development is done in Java and the .Net port is done with an automated
tool. I don't know if it's public available, one thing I found is
(http://developer.db4o.com/Projects/html/projectspaces/db4o_product_design/s
harpen.html).
Anyway, it's for sure that they maintain only one code base and generate the
.Net version from the java code, which is even quite .Netified. So it must
be possible to do automated conversion!!!


There is also another project on sourceforge that allows to translate java
to c#:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/j2cstranslator/


Another tool I found is 

http://tangiblesoftwaresolutions.com/Product_Details/Java_to_VB_and_CSharp_C
onverter_Details.html

I know another product of this company, Instant C# / Instant VB, which do a
very good job.

And of course we can look into http://www.artinsoft.com/so_j2ee.aspx, which
was proposed from George Aroush.


Maybe the afford is worth trying to get an automated tool running (for
example taking j2cs and tweak it to support special Lucene-cases). So the
next step could be to work not on Lucene.Net directly, but developing an
automated translation process. This in turn could open the future for other
wishes (for example translating setXXX, getXXX into properties).

What do you think?

And if there is some resistance with commercial tools, I could donate some
money for the license, and I'm sure other's will do as well, so a few
hundred $ will not be the problem.




Andreas


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com] 
Gesendet: Montag, 1. November 2010 22:32
An: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Betreff: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating this
process. 

> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
Good question :)

DIGY


-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

Hi Digy,

I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I didn't
realize how much effort it was to just get the port working. Hypothetically
speaking, are there code translators that do a good enough job of porting
the code where there would be time to spend on a tiny bit of clean up to
.NET idioms?  That way, for each major version, you do the port and then do
a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive my ignorance in this area.

How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?

Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a gargantuan
task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the task. ;) However,
what automated test coverage do you have. Is it pretty substantial? Is it
possible to run the Java Lucene tests against the .NET code? I ask because
at the very least, a small amount of deviation form the line by line would
be mitigated by such tests.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

Hi Phil,

I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
* Searching for differences from the current version and trying to apply
those changes to the current code Or
* Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code

The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I haven't
found an automated way).



DIGY




-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status

Hi All,

Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read the
thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the hopes of
being more helpful than not :)

The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port of
Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
(http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox
/raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:

> You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With a 
> .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in 
> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.

As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this
approach was
(http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox
/raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):

> keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the 
> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the codebase
over
> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement 
> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.

But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation at all
(and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the Java
implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not in its
current form.

But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point. The
Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting when it
comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying true to some
degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some carefully targeted
divergence could help breathe new life into the project. Perhaps some sort
of hybrid approach that loosens this line by line requirement? Some have
mentioned having the internals be closer to the line-by-line but the public
surface area fit more .NET. Even parts of the internals could be .NETified
to a small degree as long as it's clear where the original source was from
and with sufficient test automation.

After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java version.
Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to do the
port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people who want to
see the project stay alive.

I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is important
to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.

Phil

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Digy <di...@gmail.com>]

Simply "No" for all your question. I have no tools for automating this
process. 

> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
Good question :)

DIGY


-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:12 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

Hi Digy,

I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I didn't
realize how much effort it was to just get the port working. Hypothetically
speaking, are there code translators that do a good enough job of porting
the code where there would be time to spend on a tiny bit of clean up to
.NET idioms?  That way, for each major version, you do the port and then do
a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive my ignorance in this area.

How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?

Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a gargantuan
task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the task. ;) However,
what automated test coverage do you have. Is it pretty substantial? Is it
possible to run the Java Lucene tests against the .NET code? I ask because
at the very least, a small amount of deviation form the line by line would
be mitigated by such tests.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

Hi Phil,

I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
* Searching for differences from the current version and trying to apply
those changes to the current code Or
* Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code

The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I haven't
found an automated way).



DIGY




-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status

Hi All,

Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read the
thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the hopes of
being more helpful than not :)

The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port of
Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
(http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox
/raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:

> You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With a 
> .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in 
> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.

As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this
approach was
(http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox
/raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):

> keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the 
> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the codebase
over
> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement 
> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.

But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation at all
(and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the Java
implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not in its
current form.

But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point. The
Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting when it
comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying true to some
degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some carefully targeted
divergence could help breathe new life into the project. Perhaps some sort
of hybrid approach that loosens this line by line requirement? Some have
mentioned having the internals be closer to the line-by-line but the public
surface area fit more .NET. Even parts of the internals could be .NETified
to a small degree as long as it's clear where the original source was from
and with sufficient test automation.

After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java version.
Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to do the
port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people who want to
see the project stay alive.

I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is important
to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.

Phil

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Khash Sajadi <kh...@sajadi.co.uk>]

I recently had a question about Lucene and posted it on Lucene.NET email
group, stackoverflow and Lucene (Java) mail group. I received many responses
and lots of help which I could actually use since all way applicable down to
the class names to Lucene.NET. I wasn't surprised when I did not receive a
single reply from the .NET community or even Stackoverflow.

As a user of Lucene.NET at Sentimnt, I've found my sole source of
information is the Java community and Java books about Lucene.

Maybe switching to more .NET friendly development will attract more
committers but will reduce the pool of tacit knowledge that the users can
tap into dramatically.



On 1 November 2010 21:11, Phil Haack <ph...@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Hi Digy,
>
> I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I didn't
> realize how much effort it was to just get the port working. Hypothetically
> speaking, are there code translators that do a good enough job of porting
> the code where there would be time to spend on a tiny bit of clean up to
> .NET idioms?  That way, for each major version, you do the port and then do
> a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive my ignorance in this area.
>
> How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?
>
> Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a gargantuan
> task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the task. ;) However,
> what automated test coverage do you have. Is it pretty substantial? Is it
> possible to run the Java Lucene tests against the .NET code? I ask because
> at the very least, a small amount of deviation form the line by line would
> be mitigated by such tests.
>
> Phil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
> What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
> * Searching for differences from the current version and trying to apply
> those changes to the current code Or
> * Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code
>
> The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
> The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I
> haven't found an automated way).
>
>
>
> DIGY
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Hi All,
>
> Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read the
> thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the hopes of
> being more helpful than not :)
>
> The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port of
> Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan (
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox
> /raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:
>
> > You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With a
> > .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
> > belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
> > search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
>
> As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this
> approach was (
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox
> /raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):
>
> > keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
> > Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the codebase
> over
> > time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement
> > the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.
>
> But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation at all
> (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the Java
> implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not in its
> current form.
>
> But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point. The
> Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting when it
> comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying true to some
> degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some carefully targeted
> divergence could help breathe new life into the project. Perhaps some sort
> of hybrid approach that loosens this line by line requirement? Some have
> mentioned having the internals be closer to the line-by-line but the public
> surface area fit more .NET. Even parts of the internals could be .NETified
> to a small degree as long as it's clear where the original source was from
> and with sufficient test automation.
>
> After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java version.
> Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to do
> the port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people who want
> to see the project stay alive.
>
> I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is important
> to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.
>
> Phil
>
>
>

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Phil Haack <ph...@microsoft.com>]

Hi Digy,

I saw George Aroush's response on what it takes to do the port. I didn't realize how much effort it was to just get the port working. Hypothetically speaking, are there code translators that do a good enough job of porting the code where there would be time to spend on a tiny bit of clean up to .NET idioms?  That way, for each major version, you do the port and then do a tiny bit of cleanup. Forgive my ignorance in this area.

How does NHibernate and other .NET ports handle this?

Trying to understand the logic and rewrite in .NET seems like a gargantuan task. I'm certainly no search expert and am not up to the task. ;) However, what automated test coverage do you have. Is it pretty substantial? Is it possible to run the Java Lucene tests against the .NET code? I ask because at the very least, a small amount of deviation form the line by line would be mitigated by such tests.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 2:02 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

Hi Phil,

I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
* Searching for differences from the current version and trying to apply those changes to the current code Or
* Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code

The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I haven't found an automated way).



DIGY




-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status

Hi All,

Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read the thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the hopes of being more helpful than not :)

The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port of Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox
/raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:

> You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene With a 
> .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in 
> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.

As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this approach was (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox
/raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):

> keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the 
> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the codebase
over
> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement 
> the same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.

But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation at all (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the Java
implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not in its current form.

But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point. The Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting when it comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying true to some degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some carefully targeted divergence could help breathe new life into the project. Perhaps some sort of hybrid approach that loosens this line by line requirement? Some have mentioned having the internals be closer to the line-by-line but the public surface area fit more .NET. Even parts of the internals could be .NETified to a small degree as long as it's clear where the original source was from and with sufficient test automation.

After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java version.
Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to do the port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people who want to see the project stay alive.

I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is important to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.

Phil

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Digy <di...@gmail.com>]

Hi Phil,

I see your point, but there is no easy "hybrid" way.
What would you do if you wanted to port a new version of java code?
* Searching for differences from the current version and trying to apply
those changes to the current code
Or
* Trying to understand the logic and rewrite the code

The 2nd approach needs a great community as lucene.java does.
The 1st one needs a "similar" code to "see" the differences easily(I haven't
found an automated way).



DIGY




-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:26 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Lucene.NET Community Status

Hi All,

Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read the
thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the hopes of
being more helpful than not :)

The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port of
Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan
(http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox
/raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:

> You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene
> With a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.

As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this
approach was
(http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox
/raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):

> keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the codebase
over
> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement the
> same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.

But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation at all
(and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the Java
implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not in its
current form.

But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point. The
Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting when it
comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying true to some
degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some carefully targeted
divergence could help breathe new life into the project. Perhaps some sort
of hybrid approach that loosens this line by line requirement? Some have
mentioned having the internals be closer to the line-by-line but the public
surface area fit more .NET. Even parts of the internals could be .NETified
to a small degree as long as it's clear where the original source was from
and with sufficient test automation.

After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java version.
Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to do the
port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people who want to
see the project stay alive.

I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is important
to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.

Phil

Lucene.NET Community Status

[Phil Haack <ph...@microsoft.com>]

Hi All,

Sorry to jump in the middle of a conversation like this, but I've read the thread on this and wanted to point out a couple of things in the hopes of being more helpful than not :)

The goal of Lucene.NET has in the past been to be a line by line port of Lucene for the following reason posited by Robert Jordan (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox/raw/%3Ciam8c3$d6g$1@dough.gmane.org%3E/). He says:

> You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene
> With a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.

As Jeff Rodenburg (a former committer) points out, the reason for this approach was (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-user/201011.mbox/raw/%3C4ccf0425.0f958e0a.1c26.ffffc7d5@mx.google.com%3E):

> keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
> Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the codebase over
> time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement the
> same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same.

But it seems to me the very fact we're even having this conversation at all (and given the fact that.NET implementation is far behind the Java implementation) shows that this strategy isn't working. At least not in its current form.

But we can't discount the importance and magnitude of Robert's point. The Java Lucene community is and will continue to do the heavy lifting when it comes to search expertise. Thus I see the benefits of staying true to some degree to the Lucene codebase. But I wonder if some carefully targeted divergence could help breathe new life into the project. Perhaps some sort of hybrid approach that loosens this line by line requirement? Some have mentioned having the internals be closer to the line-by-line but the public surface area fit more .NET. Even parts of the internals could be .NETified to a small degree as long as it's clear where the original source was from and with sufficient test automation.

After all, the project is *already* not keeping up with the Java version. Perhaps by making the library more ".NET Friendly", the extra cost to do the port is more than outweighed by the extra involvement of people who want to see the project stay alive.

I'm pretty swamped with my other OSS projects, but Lucene.NET is important to me personally so I would like to help in any way I can.

Phil

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Josh Handel <Jo...@catapultsystems.com>]

Dotlucene!! That's the first one I remember from a few Millennia back!.. didn't know about SearchBlackBox.. but I do faintly remember running across NLucene...

And ya, I understand that with a limited or non-existent committer community, its very hard to do more than line by line port.. And the work that has been done to date is amazing....

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:04 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status


There were many forks from to roots of Lucene.Net(it was not "Lucene.Net" by that time) such as dotlucene Nlucene, SearchBlackBox etc which are now dead. The problem is not being ".NET like or not". If you have enough human resources(or "mature"
community), you can continue the project with just porting the lucene.java "logic". But if you are alone(George Aroush in this case), than you have to port "line-by-line".


DIGY

-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Handel [mailto:Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 8:38 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

I would say that's absolutely true within reason.. I know I was bit by some buffer and IO type issues that were specific to the .NET framework and introduced by being so rigid with the line by line translation.. I think a architecture and conceptual port would provide a more performt and understandable engine (even inside the crown jewels) than a line by line port..  If we are talking making a better product, lets not cut off our .NET noses to honor the projects Java roots.. 

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Arne Claassen [mailto:arnec@mindtouch.com]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:30 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

I agree with Jordan. I think keeping the internals closer to java is going to help picking up the advancements on the other side of the fence. It's the public facing API that would benefit from a more C# API if anything.

Arne Claassen

MindTouch
San Diego, CA
http://twitter.com/sdether

On Nov 1, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Robert Jordan wrote:

> On 01.11.2010 19:04, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>> If the API was kept as-is then the Lucene in Action examples would be 
>> correct.
>>
>> There are obvious correlations with Mono in this regard.
>
> With all due respect, where is the point of porting Lucene's internals 
> to something more .NET-like while keeping the same external API?
> What's wrong with Lucene's internals, the "crown jewels" that makes 
> Lucene.NET's efforts worthwhile?
>
> Robert
>
>
>>
>> C
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 Nov 2010, at 16:34, Robert Jordan<ro...@gmx.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 01.11.2010 15:50, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>>>> Then I think it will die.
>>>>
>>>> Ask Digy, George, Doug, and Michael how they feel about working 
>>>> hard to port the current source and get continually hit with 
>>>> questions on the mailing list that a quick search ( no pun intended
>>>> ) could have resolved.
>>>
>>> And a new incompatible Lucene.NET would not raise any questions?
>>>
>>> You won't be even able to point them to something like "Lucene in 
>>> Action" because there will be no book about "Lucene.NET done right"
>>> for at least a decade.
>>>
>>>> Mono doesn't port from .NET but they do match the API.
>>>
>>> I fail to see any similarity.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>
>
>

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Digy <di...@gmail.com>]

There were many forks from to roots of Lucene.Net(it was not "Lucene.Net" by
that time) such as dotlucene
Nlucene, SearchBlackBox etc which are now dead. The problem is not being
".NET like or not". If you have enough human resources(or "mature"
community), you can continue the project with just porting the lucene.java
"logic". But if you are alone(George Aroush in this case), than you have to
port "line-by-line".


DIGY

-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Handel [mailto:Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 8:38 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

I would say that's absolutely true within reason.. I know I was bit by some
buffer and IO type issues that were specific to the .NET framework and
introduced by being so rigid with the line by line translation.. I think a
architecture and conceptual port would provide a more performt and
understandable engine (even inside the crown jewels) than a line by line
port..  If we are talking making a better product, lets not cut off our .NET
noses to honor the projects Java roots.. 

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Arne Claassen [mailto:arnec@mindtouch.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:30 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

I agree with Jordan. I think keeping the internals closer to java is going
to help picking up the advancements on the other side of the fence. It's the
public facing API that would benefit from a more C# API if anything.

Arne Claassen

MindTouch
San Diego, CA
http://twitter.com/sdether

On Nov 1, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Robert Jordan wrote:

> On 01.11.2010 19:04, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>> If the API was kept as-is then the Lucene in Action examples would be 
>> correct.
>>
>> There are obvious correlations with Mono in this regard.
>
> With all due respect, where is the point of porting Lucene's internals 
> to something more .NET-like while keeping the same external API?
> What's wrong with Lucene's internals, the "crown jewels" that makes 
> Lucene.NET's efforts worthwhile?
>
> Robert
>
>
>>
>> C
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 Nov 2010, at 16:34, Robert Jordan<ro...@gmx.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 01.11.2010 15:50, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>>>> Then I think it will die.
>>>>
>>>> Ask Digy, George, Doug, and Michael how they feel about working 
>>>> hard to port the current source and get continually hit with 
>>>> questions on the mailing list that a quick search ( no pun intended 
>>>> ) could have resolved.
>>>
>>> And a new incompatible Lucene.NET would not raise any questions?
>>>
>>> You won't be even able to point them to something like "Lucene in 
>>> Action" because there will be no book about "Lucene.NET done right" 
>>> for at least a decade.
>>>
>>>> Mono doesn't port from .NET but they do match the API.
>>>
>>> I fail to see any similarity.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>
>
>

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Josh Handel <Jo...@catapultsystems.com>]

I would say that's absolutely true within reason.. I know I was bit by some buffer and IO type issues that were specific to the .NET framework and introduced by being so rigid with the line by line translation.. I think a architecture and conceptual port would provide a more performt and understandable engine (even inside the crown jewels) than a line by line port..  If we are talking making a better product, lets not cut off our .NET noses to honor the projects Java roots.. 

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Arne Claassen [mailto:arnec@mindtouch.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:30 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

I agree with Jordan. I think keeping the internals closer to java is going to help picking up the advancements on the other side of the fence. It's the public facing API that would benefit from a more C# API if anything.

Arne Claassen

MindTouch
San Diego, CA
http://twitter.com/sdether

On Nov 1, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Robert Jordan wrote:

> On 01.11.2010 19:04, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>> If the API was kept as-is then the Lucene in Action examples would be 
>> correct.
>>
>> There are obvious correlations with Mono in this regard.
>
> With all due respect, where is the point of porting Lucene's internals 
> to something more .NET-like while keeping the same external API?
> What's wrong with Lucene's internals, the "crown jewels" that makes 
> Lucene.NET's efforts worthwhile?
>
> Robert
>
>
>>
>> C
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 Nov 2010, at 16:34, Robert Jordan<ro...@gmx.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 01.11.2010 15:50, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>>>> Then I think it will die.
>>>>
>>>> Ask Digy, George, Doug, and Michael how they feel about working 
>>>> hard to port the current source and get continually hit with 
>>>> questions on the mailing list that a quick search ( no pun intended 
>>>> ) could have resolved.
>>>
>>> And a new incompatible Lucene.NET would not raise any questions?
>>>
>>> You won't be even able to point them to something like "Lucene in 
>>> Action" because there will be no book about "Lucene.NET done right" 
>>> for at least a decade.
>>>
>>>> Mono doesn't port from .NET but they do match the API.
>>>
>>> I fail to see any similarity.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Arne Claassen <ar...@mindtouch.com>]

I agree with Jordan. I think keeping the internals closer to java is  
going to help picking up the advancements on the other side of the  
fence. It's the public facing API that would benefit from a more C#  
API if anything.

Arne Claassen

MindTouch
San Diego, CA
http://twitter.com/sdether

On Nov 1, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Robert Jordan wrote:

> On 01.11.2010 19:04, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>> If the API was kept as-is then the Lucene in Action examples would  
>> be correct.
>>
>> There are obvious correlations with Mono in this regard.
>
> With all due respect, where is the point of porting Lucene's internals
> to something more .NET-like while keeping the same external API?
> What's wrong with Lucene's internals, the "crown jewels" that makes
> Lucene.NET's efforts worthwhile?
>
> Robert
>
>
>>
>> C
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 Nov 2010, at 16:34, Robert Jordan<ro...@gmx.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 01.11.2010 15:50, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>>>> Then I think it will die.
>>>>
>>>> Ask Digy, George, Doug, and Michael how they feel about working  
>>>> hard to port
>>>> the current source and get continually hit with questions on the  
>>>> mailing
>>>> list that a quick search ( no pun intended ) could have resolved.
>>>
>>> And a new incompatible Lucene.NET would not raise any questions?
>>>
>>> You won't be even able to point them to something like
>>> "Lucene in Action" because there will be no book about
>>> "Lucene.NET done right" for at least a decade.
>>>
>>>> Mono doesn't port from .NET but they do match the API.
>>>
>>> I fail to see any similarity.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>
>
>

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Josh Handel <Jo...@catapultsystems.com>]

Cutting and pasting examples has been far less useful then would have had a .NET vibe.. Make the classes the same sure, make the properties the same sure.. But cut and paste "Obj.setIndexReader(reader)" vs. "Obj.IndexReader = reader" is well within the bounds of what a .NET programmer can figure out by looking at an example.. Under the assumption that the rest of the API works the same.. Plus with a more .NET paradigm we can easily start adding some pretty compelling stuff like Lamdas, Linq, extended methods.. 

Could you imagine delegate based collectors instead of custom collector classes.. To me that seems pretty darn cool.. :-P

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Jordan [mailto:robertj@gmx.net] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:24 PM
To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

On 01.11.2010 19:04, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
> If the API was kept as-is then the Lucene in Action examples would be correct.
>
> There are obvious correlations with Mono in this regard.

With all due respect, where is the point of porting Lucene's internals to something more .NET-like while keeping the same external API?
What's wrong with Lucene's internals, the "crown jewels" that makes Lucene.NET's efforts worthwhile?

Robert


>
> C
>
>
>
> On 1 Nov 2010, at 16:34, Robert Jordan<ro...@gmx.net>  wrote:
>
>> On 01.11.2010 15:50, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>>> Then I think it will die.
>>>
>>> Ask Digy, George, Doug, and Michael how they feel about working hard 
>>> to port the current source and get continually hit with questions on 
>>> the mailing list that a quick search ( no pun intended ) could have resolved.
>>
>> And a new incompatible Lucene.NET would not raise any questions?
>>
>> You won't be even able to point them to something like "Lucene in 
>> Action" because there will be no book about "Lucene.NET done right" 
>> for at least a decade.
>>
>>> Mono doesn't port from .NET but they do match the API.
>>
>> I fail to see any similarity.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Ciaran Roarty <ci...@gmail.com>]

Robert

I think we are at the stage where we will need to agree to differ.
I've heard enough on both sides of this argument to validate both our
viewpoints.

I think that later versions of .NET and a rewrite ( perhaps partial )
could help Lucene.NET get the best of both worlds; I am pretty sure
Generics could improve the performance for a start.

C



On 1 Nov 2010, at 18:24, Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net> wrote:

> On 01.11.2010 19:04, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>> If the API was kept as-is then the Lucene in Action examples would be correct.
>>
>> There are obvious correlations with Mono in this regard.
>
> With all due respect, where is the point of porting Lucene's internals
> to something more .NET-like while keeping the same external API?
> What's wrong with Lucene's internals, the "crown jewels" that makes
> Lucene.NET's efforts worthwhile?
>
> Robert
>
>
>>
>> C
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 Nov 2010, at 16:34, Robert Jordan<ro...@gmx.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 01.11.2010 15:50, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>>>> Then I think it will die.
>>>>
>>>> Ask Digy, George, Doug, and Michael how they feel about working hard to port
>>>> the current source and get continually hit with questions on the mailing
>>>> list that a quick search ( no pun intended ) could have resolved.
>>>
>>> And a new incompatible Lucene.NET would not raise any questions?
>>>
>>> You won't be even able to point them to something like
>>> "Lucene in Action" because there will be no book about
>>> "Lucene.NET done right" for at least a decade.
>>>
>>>> Mono doesn't port from .NET but they do match the API.
>>>
>>> I fail to see any similarity.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net>]

On 01.11.2010 19:04, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
> If the API was kept as-is then the Lucene in Action examples would be correct.
>
> There are obvious correlations with Mono in this regard.

With all due respect, where is the point of porting Lucene's internals
to something more .NET-like while keeping the same external API?
What's wrong with Lucene's internals, the "crown jewels" that makes
Lucene.NET's efforts worthwhile?

Robert


>
> C
>
>
>
> On 1 Nov 2010, at 16:34, Robert Jordan<ro...@gmx.net>  wrote:
>
>> On 01.11.2010 15:50, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>>> Then I think it will die.
>>>
>>> Ask Digy, George, Doug, and Michael how they feel about working hard to port
>>> the current source and get continually hit with questions on the mailing
>>> list that a quick search ( no pun intended ) could have resolved.
>>
>> And a new incompatible Lucene.NET would not raise any questions?
>>
>> You won't be even able to point them to something like
>> "Lucene in Action" because there will be no book about
>> "Lucene.NET done right" for at least a decade.
>>
>>> Mono doesn't port from .NET but they do match the API.
>>
>> I fail to see any similarity.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Ciaran Roarty <ci...@gmail.com>]

If the API was kept as-is then the Lucene in Action examples would be correct.

There are obvious correlations with Mono in this regard.

C



On 1 Nov 2010, at 16:34, Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net> wrote:

> On 01.11.2010 15:50, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>> Then I think it will die.
>>
>> Ask Digy, George, Doug, and Michael how they feel about working hard to port
>> the current source and get continually hit with questions on the mailing
>> list that a quick search ( no pun intended ) could have resolved.
>
> And a new incompatible Lucene.NET would not raise any questions?
>
> You won't be even able to point them to something like
> "Lucene in Action" because there will be no book about
> "Lucene.NET done right" for at least a decade.
>
>> Mono doesn't port from .NET but they do match the API.
>
> I fail to see any similarity.
>
> Robert
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net>]

On 01.11.2010 15:50, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
> Then I think it will die.
>
> Ask Digy, George, Doug, and Michael how they feel about working hard to port
> the current source and get continually hit with questions on the mailing
> list that a quick search ( no pun intended ) could have resolved.

And a new incompatible Lucene.NET would not raise any questions?

You won't be even able to point them to something like
"Lucene in Action" because there will be no book about
"Lucene.NET done right" for at least a decade.

> Mono doesn't port from .NET but they do match the API.

I fail to see any similarity.

Robert

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Ciaran Roarty <ci...@gmail.com>]

Then I think it will die.

Ask Digy, George, Doug, and Michael how they feel about working hard to port
the current source and get continually hit with questions on the mailing
list that a quick search ( no pun intended ) could have resolved.

Lucene.Net is miles off Lucene just now - is it not? If a new version was
ported and worked on to be more .NETish - less dependency on exceptions,
using generics etc.... would that not be worthwhile? One that base exists
then the search concepts could be taken over from newer versions of Lucene.
If the public API is kept then tests and examples would continue to work.

Mono doesn't port from .NET but they do match the API.

Ciaran
On 1 November 2010 14:35, Glyn Darkin <gl...@darkinsystems.com> wrote:

> Lucene.Net as a project is exactly what is written here:
>
> >> http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/
>
> If anybody whats to do something different, then by all means, grab the
> Java Source, convert it how you see fit and create a new project on CodePlex
> and call it something else.
>
> Thats what open source is about.
>
> G
>
>
>
>
> On 1 Nov 2010, at 14:25, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Well, your opinion is diametrically opposed to Lucene.NET's project
> >> goals...
> >>
> >>
> > Perhaps but are those goals still valid?
> >
> > Unless I've missed something the project is in danger of shutting down;
> > maybe a re-imagining of the project is required?
> >
> > Ciaran
> >
> >
> > On 1 November 2010 14:07, Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 01.11.2010 12:38, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
> >>
> >>> A simple port could be achieved using IKVM, could it not? (
> >>> http://www.ikvm.net/ )
> >>>
> >>
> >> Feel free to try it out if you're fine with adding yet another
> >> layer to your .NET apps.
> >>
> >> For each binary translator + runtime out there, I'd rather run a
> >> native port.
> >>
> >>
> >> If so, what's the point of Lucene.NET?
> >>>
> >>
> >> See the first paragraph of http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't feel I am missing the point, I feel I am expressing an opinion.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, your opinion is diametrically opposed to Lucene.NET's project
> >> goals...
> >>
> >> Robert
> >>
> >>
>
>  Glyn Darkin
>
> Darkin Systems Ltd
> Mob: 07961815649
> Fax: 08717145065
> Web: www.darkinsystems.com
>
> Company No: 6173001
> VAT No: 906350835
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Glyn Darkin <gl...@darkinsystems.com>]

Lucene.Net as a project is exactly what is written here:

>> http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/

If anybody whats to do something different, then by all means, grab the Java Source, convert it how you see fit and create a new project on CodePlex and call it something else.

Thats what open source is about.

G




On 1 Nov 2010, at 14:25, Ciaran Roarty wrote:

>> 
>> Well, your opinion is diametrically opposed to Lucene.NET's project
>> goals...
>> 
>> 
> Perhaps but are those goals still valid?
> 
> Unless I've missed something the project is in danger of shutting down;
> maybe a re-imagining of the project is required?
> 
> Ciaran
> 
> 
> On 1 November 2010 14:07, Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 01.11.2010 12:38, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>> 
>>> A simple port could be achieved using IKVM, could it not? (
>>> http://www.ikvm.net/ )
>>> 
>> 
>> Feel free to try it out if you're fine with adding yet another
>> layer to your .NET apps.
>> 
>> For each binary translator + runtime out there, I'd rather run a
>> native port.
>> 
>> 
>> If so, what's the point of Lucene.NET?
>>> 
>> 
>> See the first paragraph of http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/
>> 
>> 
>> I don't feel I am missing the point, I feel I am expressing an opinion.
>>> 
>> 
>> Well, your opinion is diametrically opposed to Lucene.NET's project
>> goals...
>> 
>> Robert
>> 
>> 

Glyn Darkin

Darkin Systems Ltd
Mob: 07961815649
Fax: 08717145065
Web: www.darkinsystems.com

Company No: 6173001
VAT No: 906350835

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Ciaran Roarty <ci...@gmail.com>]

>
> Well, your opinion is diametrically opposed to Lucene.NET's project
> goals...
>
>
Perhaps but are those goals still valid?

Unless I've missed something the project is in danger of shutting down;
maybe a re-imagining of the project is required?

Ciaran


On 1 November 2010 14:07, Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net> wrote:

> On 01.11.2010 12:38, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>
>> A simple port could be achieved using IKVM, could it not? (
>> http://www.ikvm.net/ )
>>
>
> Feel free to try it out if you're fine with adding yet another
> layer to your .NET apps.
>
> For each binary translator + runtime out there, I'd rather run a
> native port.
>
>
> If so, what's the point of Lucene.NET?
>>
>
> See the first paragraph of http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/
>
>
> I don't feel I am missing the point, I feel I am expressing an opinion.
>>
>
> Well, your opinion is diametrically opposed to Lucene.NET's project
> goals...
>
> Robert
>
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net>]

On 01.11.2010 12:38, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
> A simple port could be achieved using IKVM, could it not? (
> http://www.ikvm.net/ )

Feel free to try it out if you're fine with adding yet another
layer to your .NET apps.

For each binary translator + runtime out there, I'd rather run a
native port.

> If so, what's the point of Lucene.NET?

See the first paragraph of http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/

> I don't feel I am missing the point, I feel I am expressing an opinion.

Well, your opinion is diametrically opposed to Lucene.NET's project
goals...

Robert

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Ciaran Roarty <ci...@gmail.com>]

A simple port could be achieved using IKVM, could it not? (
http://www.ikvm.net/ )

If so, what's the point of Lucene.NET?

I don't feel I am missing the point, I feel I am expressing an opinion.

Ciaran

On 1 November 2010 11:30, Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net> wrote:

> On 01.11.2010 10:57, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene
> with a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
>
>
> 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
>>
>
> I fail to see any need for .NET 4 or even .NET 3.5. There is only
> one case where .NET 4 could be useful and a couple of other
> cases for .NET 3.5.
>
> Not chasing .NET versions is definitely not the reason why
> Lucene.NET is going back in incubation.
>
> The real reason was pointed out by DIGI: no one stepped out
> for the "dully" work: prepare/publish official releases,
> home page love, interact with the Board, etc.
>
>
> I wouldn't want to be involved in a project that chased Lucene's tail
>> forever.
>>
>
> This is Lucene.NET's goal.
>
> Robert
>
>

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>]

>
>  Why do someone have to manually manage all that things when any other
>> opensource project hosting gives a easy and effortless to maintain project
>> website?
>>
>
> Why didn't someone fork the project already?



First, that will change the name (ASF made already clear that they "own" the
name)
People know that Lucene.Net is just the Lucene for .NET, so if the project
was called FPoL.NET (Former Project of Lucene.NET) it will be as a different
project, and there will be even more confusion for the user (same that
happened to iBatis->myBatis... people don't understand it is just the same
project that decided to leave the ASF).


>
>  Why cannot people release a new version when he feels it is ready but has
>> to
>> wait for the approval from a "board"?
>>
>
> I don't know. If I knew how it goes I'd step up to prepare a release.


Unless you are member of the PMG I doubt you will be able to vote for the
approval for the release.


>
>
>  Why does a .NET library have to set properties using setter and getters
>> and
>> cannot just use "Properties"?
>> Why cannot we make a .NET version of Lucene that really follows the idioms
>> of .NET (properties, generics, maybe even Linq)?
>>
>
> Again, where is the fork where such changes could be done?
> There seems to be no real demand for it.


There is not because the "official" project statement says it cannot be done


>
>
>



-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net>]

On 01.11.2010 18:10, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
>>> I'm not a big fun of politics and bureaucracy but having to spend time
>>> on such things when everybody contribute to opensource on its own
>>> spare time doesn't seem to me the most effective use of time. If this
>>> project was hosted on codeplex/github/googlecode it would have
>>> probably released 10 versions in the last 2 years.
>>>
>>
>> ACK. But it seems that this kind of bureaucracy is necessary
>> to comply with Apache Foundation's policy.
>
>
> The point of my sentence was: it this really necessary? I wrote a series of
> blog post about Lucene.NET and most of the questions I got were about the
> fact that the official site shows that the latest release is from 2007 and
> they were thinking it was a dead project.

Don't tell me this :) I have picked the wrong version myself
when I started using Lucene.NET.

> Why do someone have to manually manage all that things when any other
> opensource project hosting gives a easy and effortless to maintain project
> website?

Why didn't someone fork the project already?

> Why cannot people release a new version when he feels it is ready but has to
> wait for the approval from a "board"?

I don't know. If I knew how it goes I'd step up to prepare a release.

> Why does a .NET library have to set properties using setter and getters and
> cannot just use "Properties"?
> Why cannot we make a .NET version of Lucene that really follows the idioms
> of .NET (properties, generics, maybe even Linq)?

Again, where is the fork where such changes could be done?
There seems to be no real demand for it.

> Same goes with NAnt vs Ant.

Unlikely. NAnt was almost dead until the project has finally gained
*some* momentum this year.

> Also Log4Net, another Apache project, which is a port of Log4j, is not just
> a mere port, but, as the project description says:
> *"We have kept the framework similar in spirit to the original log4j while
> taking advantage of new features in the .NET runtime."*

Last release: 2006. But it's a great and mature project, though.

Anyways, the projects you've listed are ways too different from Lucene.
Lucene owns a great searching expertise that cannot be duplicated
by a small .NET project.

Robert

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>]

>From the first email:
"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"



On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Josh Handel <Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com
> wrote:

> About 1/2 million years ago there used to be a Lucene C# (or something like
> that) it was pre Lucene.Net and in the very early days of Lucene.... but it
> wasn't connected with Lucene at all, however, it did share the name.. Then
> again perhaps that was before Lucene was an Apache Foundation project too..
>
> Josh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:20 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> I think the name must not contain the term Lucene
>
> I'd vote for FPoL.NET (Former Project of Lucene.NET) :D
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Josh Handel <
> Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com
> > wrote:
>
> > LuceneSharp has a nice ring to it. ;-)
> >
> > Josh
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:16 PM
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >
> > No limitations: just that the project would need to change name as
> > Lucene.Net is "owned" by ASF
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Josh Handel <
> > Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Just out of curiosity.. Is there anything in the Apache License
> > > stopping the project from forking and moving over to a more agile
> > > (not methodology but in general) open source paradigm?
> > >
> > > Just saying Lucene.NET can maintain the same mission statement
> > > without the project being burdened by the weight of Apache
> > > Foundation.. That is unless the Foundation is providing something the
> community needs.
> > >
> > > It just seems to me if the Apache Foundation is the difficulty here,
> > > transitioning the project & licensing to outside them is the least
> > > impacting way to increase the release schedule and show how truly
> > > active  this project is.
> > >
> > > Of course there is always the option to Fork and change direction if
> > > the mission statement is where the difficulties are.. I know in my
> > > Lucene work, not having a .NET vibe to the API has caused more of a
> > > hindrance and confusion than the limited ability to cut and paste
> > > java examples has provided to be a boon.. However, I would say that
> > > file level compatibility has been pretty beneficial as LUKE is a god
> > > send on large projects.. But given Lucenes open source nature, that
> > > seems like something that can be maintained regardless of the
> > > direction the
> > project takes in the future.
> > >
> > > Josh
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:03 PM
> > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> > >
> > > I sent an email to Digy yesterday since Phil Haack, from Microsoft,
> > > asked the same thing.
> > > Seems like MS is interested in keeping this widely project alive.
> > >
> > > Btw: I just wrote a blog post to raise the awareness:
> > >
> > > http://codeclimber.net.nz/archive/2010/11/01/Lucene-Net-needs-your-h
> > > el
> > > p-or-it-will-die.aspx
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Khash Sajadi <kh...@sajadi.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Scott Hansleman of MS is asking me if I have any ideas as to how
> > > > MS can help Lucene.NET
> > > >
> > > > I put the question forward to this mail group.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 1 November 2010 17:10, Simone Chiaretta
> > > > <simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 01.11.2010 15:20, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Not chasing .NET versions is definitely not the reason why
> > > > > >>> Lucene.NET is going back in incubation.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> The real reason was pointed out by DIGI: no one stepped out
> > > > > >>> for the "dully" work: prepare/publish official releases,
> > > > > >>> home page love, interact with the Board,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I'm not a big fun of politics and bureaucracy but having to
> > > > > >> spend time on such things when everybody contribute to
> > > > > >> opensource on its own spare time doesn't seem to me the most
> > > > > >> effective use of time. If this project was hosted on
> > > > > >> codeplex/github/googlecode it would have probably released 10
> > versions in the last 2 years.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ACK. But it seems that this kind of bureaucracy is necessary
> > > > > > to comply with Apache Foundation's policy.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The point of my sentence was: it this really necessary? I wrote
> > > > > a series
> > > > of
> > > > > blog post about Lucene.NET and most of the questions I got were
> > > > > about the fact that the official site shows that the latest
> > > > > release is from 2007
> > > > and
> > > > > they were thinking it was a dead project.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Then, another thought:  Most of people have to work with old
> > > > > > versions
> > > > > >> at their job, so when they contribute to OSS projects they
> > > > > >> want to have fun and work on the latest versions.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, you said it: "Most of people have to work with old
> versions".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This implies that an out-of-fun dependency on the latest and
> > > > > > greatest framework version would be rather obstructive for
> > > > > > real-world projects.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not really: you can still develop using VS2010 and compile on
> > > > > .NET
> > > > > 2.0 if you want. And you can build Lucene.Net 3.0 on .NET 4, but
> > > > > keep 2.4 or 2.9 on
> > > > > 2.0 (which, btw is the same as 3.5)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Working on a line-by-line port is definitely not fun, add to
> > > > > > the mix
> > > > > >> that lucene.net is still .net 2.0 and the solution is VS2005
> > > > > >> (we are on VS2010 now) and you probably understand why  not
> > > > > >> many devs are willing to contribute.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Switching to VS 2008 or 2010 is a painless process that takes
> > > > > > about 2 minutes. If someone is scared by so little work then I
> > > > > > doubt he/she is really willing to contribute.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not about the fact itself, is about the perception: if you
> > > > > see a solution file that is VS2005 you think that Lucene.Net is
> > > > > built of old version of the framework and there is no interest
> > > > > in keeping it up to
> > > > date.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Let's not try to construct a reason for the current situation
> > > > > > because neither the tooling nor Lucene.NET's basic concept led
> > > > > > to it.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not 100% sure about that: I personally will not contribute
> > > > > to a
> > > > project
> > > > > were most of time goes into running a tool to convert from Java
> > > > > to .NET, fix the errors, manually managing the website, releases
> > > > > and interacting with the ASF Board
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do someone have to manually manage all that things when any
> > > > > other opensource project hosting gives a easy and effortless to
> > > > > maintain
> > > > project
> > > > > website?
> > > > > Why cannot people release a new version when he feels it is
> > > > > ready but has to wait for the approval from a "board"?
> > > > > Why does a .NET library have to set properties using setter and
> > > > > getters
> > > > and
> > > > > cannot just use "Properties"?
> > > > > Why cannot we make a .NET version of Lucene that really follows
> > > > > the
> > > > idioms
> > > > > of .NET (properties, generics, maybe even Linq)?
> > > > >
> > > > > I keep on pointing at NHibernate as an example: it is feature
> > > > > compatible with Hibernate, but feels like a .NET library, not a
> > > > > Java
> > > library.
> > > > > Same goes with NAnt vs Ant.
> > > > > Also Log4Net, another Apache project, which is a port of Log4j,
> > > > > is not
> > > > just
> > > > > a mere port, but, as the project description says:
> > > > > *"We have kept the framework similar in spirit to the original
> > > > > log4j
> > > > while
> > > > > taking advantage of new features in the .NET runtime."*
> > > > >
> > > > > I think changing a bit the "project goals" in that sense will
> > > > > make the project gain, both from the user and the developers
> standpoints.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Robert
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Simone Chiaretta
> > > > > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > > > > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > > > > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > > > > twitter: @simonech
> > > > >
> > > > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
> > > > > magic "Life is short, play hard"
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Simone Chiaretta
> > > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > > twitter: @simonech
> > >
> > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> > > "Life is short, play hard"
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Simone Chiaretta
> > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > twitter: @simonech
> >
> > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> > "Life is short, play hard"
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Simone Chiaretta
> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> twitter: @simonech
>
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic "Life
> is short, play hard"
>



-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Josh Handel <Jo...@catapultsystems.com>]

About 1/2 million years ago there used to be a Lucene C# (or something like that) it was pre Lucene.Net and in the very early days of Lucene.... but it wasn't connected with Lucene at all, however, it did share the name.. Then again perhaps that was before Lucene was an Apache Foundation project too.. 

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:20 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

I think the name must not contain the term Lucene

I'd vote for FPoL.NET (Former Project of Lucene.NET) :D

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Josh Handel <Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com
> wrote:

> LuceneSharp has a nice ring to it. ;-)
>
> Josh
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:16 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> No limitations: just that the project would need to change name as 
> Lucene.Net is "owned" by ASF
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Josh Handel < 
> Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity.. Is there anything in the Apache License 
> > stopping the project from forking and moving over to a more agile 
> > (not methodology but in general) open source paradigm?
> >
> > Just saying Lucene.NET can maintain the same mission statement 
> > without the project being burdened by the weight of Apache 
> > Foundation.. That is unless the Foundation is providing something the community needs.
> >
> > It just seems to me if the Apache Foundation is the difficulty here, 
> > transitioning the project & licensing to outside them is the least 
> > impacting way to increase the release schedule and show how truly 
> > active  this project is.
> >
> > Of course there is always the option to Fork and change direction if 
> > the mission statement is where the difficulties are.. I know in my 
> > Lucene work, not having a .NET vibe to the API has caused more of a 
> > hindrance and confusion than the limited ability to cut and paste 
> > java examples has provided to be a boon.. However, I would say that 
> > file level compatibility has been pretty beneficial as LUKE is a god 
> > send on large projects.. But given Lucenes open source nature, that 
> > seems like something that can be maintained regardless of the 
> > direction the
> project takes in the future.
> >
> > Josh
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:03 PM
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >
> > I sent an email to Digy yesterday since Phil Haack, from Microsoft, 
> > asked the same thing.
> > Seems like MS is interested in keeping this widely project alive.
> >
> > Btw: I just wrote a blog post to raise the awareness:
> >
> > http://codeclimber.net.nz/archive/2010/11/01/Lucene-Net-needs-your-h
> > el
> > p-or-it-will-die.aspx
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Khash Sajadi <kh...@sajadi.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Scott Hansleman of MS is asking me if I have any ideas as to how 
> > > MS can help Lucene.NET
> > >
> > > I put the question forward to this mail group.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1 November 2010 17:10, Simone Chiaretta 
> > > <simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 01.11.2010 15:20, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Not chasing .NET versions is definitely not the reason why 
> > > > >>> Lucene.NET is going back in incubation.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The real reason was pointed out by DIGI: no one stepped out 
> > > > >>> for the "dully" work: prepare/publish official releases, 
> > > > >>> home page love, interact with the Board,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm not a big fun of politics and bureaucracy but having to 
> > > > >> spend time on such things when everybody contribute to 
> > > > >> opensource on its own spare time doesn't seem to me the most 
> > > > >> effective use of time. If this project was hosted on 
> > > > >> codeplex/github/googlecode it would have probably released 10
> versions in the last 2 years.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > ACK. But it seems that this kind of bureaucracy is necessary 
> > > > > to comply with Apache Foundation's policy.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The point of my sentence was: it this really necessary? I wrote 
> > > > a series
> > > of
> > > > blog post about Lucene.NET and most of the questions I got were 
> > > > about the fact that the official site shows that the latest 
> > > > release is from 2007
> > > and
> > > > they were thinking it was a dead project.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  Then, another thought:  Most of people have to work with old 
> > > > > versions
> > > > >> at their job, so when they contribute to OSS projects they 
> > > > >> want to have fun and work on the latest versions.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, you said it: "Most of people have to work with old versions".
> > > > >
> > > > > This implies that an out-of-fun dependency on the latest and 
> > > > > greatest framework version would be rather obstructive for 
> > > > > real-world projects.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not really: you can still develop using VS2010 and compile on 
> > > > .NET
> > > > 2.0 if you want. And you can build Lucene.Net 3.0 on .NET 4, but 
> > > > keep 2.4 or 2.9 on
> > > > 2.0 (which, btw is the same as 3.5)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  Working on a line-by-line port is definitely not fun, add to 
> > > > > the mix
> > > > >> that lucene.net is still .net 2.0 and the solution is VS2005 
> > > > >> (we are on VS2010 now) and you probably understand why  not 
> > > > >> many devs are willing to contribute.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Switching to VS 2008 or 2010 is a painless process that takes 
> > > > > about 2 minutes. If someone is scared by so little work then I 
> > > > > doubt he/she is really willing to contribute.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's not about the fact itself, is about the perception: if you 
> > > > see a solution file that is VS2005 you think that Lucene.Net is 
> > > > built of old version of the framework and there is no interest 
> > > > in keeping it up to
> > > date.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Let's not try to construct a reason for the current situation 
> > > > > because neither the tooling nor Lucene.NET's basic concept led 
> > > > > to it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not 100% sure about that: I personally will not contribute 
> > > > to a
> > > project
> > > > were most of time goes into running a tool to convert from Java 
> > > > to .NET, fix the errors, manually managing the website, releases 
> > > > and interacting with the ASF Board
> > > >
> > > > Why do someone have to manually manage all that things when any 
> > > > other opensource project hosting gives a easy and effortless to 
> > > > maintain
> > > project
> > > > website?
> > > > Why cannot people release a new version when he feels it is 
> > > > ready but has to wait for the approval from a "board"?
> > > > Why does a .NET library have to set properties using setter and 
> > > > getters
> > > and
> > > > cannot just use "Properties"?
> > > > Why cannot we make a .NET version of Lucene that really follows 
> > > > the
> > > idioms
> > > > of .NET (properties, generics, maybe even Linq)?
> > > >
> > > > I keep on pointing at NHibernate as an example: it is feature 
> > > > compatible with Hibernate, but feels like a .NET library, not a 
> > > > Java
> > library.
> > > > Same goes with NAnt vs Ant.
> > > > Also Log4Net, another Apache project, which is a port of Log4j, 
> > > > is not
> > > just
> > > > a mere port, but, as the project description says:
> > > > *"We have kept the framework similar in spirit to the original 
> > > > log4j
> > > while
> > > > taking advantage of new features in the .NET runtime."*
> > > >
> > > > I think changing a bit the "project goals" in that sense will 
> > > > make the project gain, both from the user and the developers standpoints.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Robert
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Simone Chiaretta
> > > > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > > > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > > > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > > > twitter: @simonech
> > > >
> > > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from 
> > > > magic "Life is short, play hard"
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Simone Chiaretta
> > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > twitter: @simonech
> >
> > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic 
> > "Life is short, play hard"
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Simone Chiaretta
> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> twitter: @simonech
>
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic 
> "Life is short, play hard"
>



--
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic "Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Arne Claassen <ar...@mindtouch.com>]

There seem to b two discussions here:

1) Should the project leave the ASF
2) Should the approach to maintaining the project change from line by  
line port to a feature compatible C# syntactic style

Is there anything about staying with the ASF prohibit 2)? Is the API  
compatible requirement from the ASF or the internal decision of the  
Lucene.NET committer (i'm deliberately not saying community, because  
if you don't have people writing the code, the opinion of the  
community doesn't carry much weight).

I also favor getting a more C# syntax and believe that a style that's  
more intuitive to .NET developers could help adoption.

Although I think getting an official release is more important than  
anything else. Most of the time I talk about Lucene.NET the question i  
get "isn't the project dead? it hasn't released anything in years"

Arne Claassen

MindTouch
San Diego, CA
http://twitter.com/sdether

On Nov 1, 2010, at 11:20 AM, Simone Chiaretta wrote:

> I think the name must not contain the term Lucene
>
> I'd vote for FPoL.NET (Former Project of Lucene.NET) :D
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Josh Handel <Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com
>> wrote:
>
>> LuceneSharp has a nice ring to it. ;-)
>>
>> Josh
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:16 PM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>
>> No limitations: just that the project would need to change name as
>> Lucene.Net is "owned" by ASF
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Josh Handel <
>> Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just out of curiosity.. Is there anything in the Apache License
>>> stopping the project from forking and moving over to a more agile  
>>> (not
>>> methodology but in general) open source paradigm?
>>>
>>> Just saying Lucene.NET can maintain the same mission statement  
>>> without
>>> the project being burdened by the weight of Apache Foundation.. That
>>> is unless the Foundation is providing something the community needs.
>>>
>>> It just seems to me if the Apache Foundation is the difficulty here,
>>> transitioning the project & licensing to outside them is the least
>>> impacting way to increase the release schedule and show how truly
>>> active  this project is.
>>>
>>> Of course there is always the option to Fork and change direction if
>>> the mission statement is where the difficulties are.. I know in my
>>> Lucene work, not having a .NET vibe to the API has caused more of a
>>> hindrance and confusion than the limited ability to cut and paste  
>>> java
>>> examples has provided to be a boon.. However, I would say that file
>>> level compatibility has been pretty beneficial as LUKE is a god send
>>> on large projects.. But given Lucenes open source nature, that seems
>>> like something that can be maintained regardless of the direction  
>>> the
>> project takes in the future.
>>>
>>> Josh
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:03 PM
>>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>>>
>>> I sent an email to Digy yesterday since Phil Haack, from Microsoft,
>>> asked the same thing.
>>> Seems like MS is interested in keeping this widely project alive.
>>>
>>> Btw: I just wrote a blog post to raise the awareness:
>>>
>>> http://codeclimber.net.nz/archive/2010/11/01/Lucene-Net-needs-your-hel
>>> p-or-it-will-die.aspx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Khash Sajadi <kh...@sajadi.co.uk>  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scott Hansleman of MS is asking me if I have any ideas as to how MS
>>>> can help Lucene.NET
>>>>
>>>> I put the question forward to this mail group.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1 November 2010 17:10, Simone Chiaretta
>>>> <simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01.11.2010 15:20, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not chasing .NET versions is definitely not the reason why
>>>>>>>> Lucene.NET is going back in incubation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The real reason was pointed out by DIGI: no one stepped out
>>>>>>>> for the "dully" work: prepare/publish official releases, home
>>>>>>>> page love, interact with the Board,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not a big fun of politics and bureaucracy but having to
>>>>>>> spend time on such things when everybody contribute to
>>>>>>> opensource on its own spare time doesn't seem to me the most
>>>>>>> effective use of time. If this project was hosted on
>>>>>>> codeplex/github/googlecode it would have probably released 10
>> versions in the last 2 years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ACK. But it seems that this kind of bureaucracy is necessary to
>>>>>> comply with Apache Foundation's policy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The point of my sentence was: it this really necessary? I wrote a
>>>>> series
>>>> of
>>>>> blog post about Lucene.NET and most of the questions I got were
>>>>> about the fact that the official site shows that the latest
>>>>> release is from 2007
>>>> and
>>>>> they were thinking it was a dead project.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, another thought:  Most of people have to work with old
>>>>>> versions
>>>>>>> at their job, so when they contribute to OSS projects they want
>>>>>>> to have fun and work on the latest versions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, you said it: "Most of people have to work with old  
>>>>>> versions".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This implies that an out-of-fun dependency on the latest and
>>>>>> greatest framework version would be rather obstructive for
>>>>>> real-world projects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really: you can still develop using VS2010 and compile on .NET
>>>>> 2.0 if you want. And you can build Lucene.Net 3.0 on .NET 4, but
>>>>> keep 2.4 or 2.9 on
>>>>> 2.0 (which, btw is the same as 3.5)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Working on a line-by-line port is definitely not fun, add to
>>>>>> the mix
>>>>>>> that lucene.net is still .net 2.0 and the solution is VS2005
>>>>>>> (we are on VS2010 now) and you probably understand why  not
>>>>>>> many devs are willing to contribute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Switching to VS 2008 or 2010 is a painless process that takes
>>>>>> about 2 minutes. If someone is scared by so little work then I
>>>>>> doubt he/she is really willing to contribute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not about the fact itself, is about the perception: if you
>>>>> see a solution file that is VS2005 you think that Lucene.Net is
>>>>> built of old version of the framework and there is no interest in
>>>>> keeping it up to
>>>> date.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's not try to construct a reason for the current situation
>>>>>> because neither the tooling nor Lucene.NET's basic concept led
>>>>>> to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not 100% sure about that: I personally will not contribute to
>>>>> a
>>>> project
>>>>> were most of time goes into running a tool to convert from Java to
>>>>> .NET, fix the errors, manually managing the website, releases and
>>>>> interacting with the ASF Board
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do someone have to manually manage all that things when any
>>>>> other opensource project hosting gives a easy and effortless to
>>>>> maintain
>>>> project
>>>>> website?
>>>>> Why cannot people release a new version when he feels it is ready
>>>>> but has to wait for the approval from a "board"?
>>>>> Why does a .NET library have to set properties using setter and
>>>>> getters
>>>> and
>>>>> cannot just use "Properties"?
>>>>> Why cannot we make a .NET version of Lucene that really follows
>>>>> the
>>>> idioms
>>>>> of .NET (properties, generics, maybe even Linq)?
>>>>>
>>>>> I keep on pointing at NHibernate as an example: it is feature
>>>>> compatible with Hibernate, but feels like a .NET library, not a
>>>>> Java
>>> library.
>>>>> Same goes with NAnt vs Ant.
>>>>> Also Log4Net, another Apache project, which is a port of Log4j, is
>>>>> not
>>>> just
>>>>> a mere port, but, as the project description says:
>>>>> *"We have kept the framework similar in spirit to the original
>>>>> log4j
>>>> while
>>>>> taking advantage of new features in the .NET runtime."*
>>>>>
>>>>> I think changing a bit the "project goals" in that sense will make
>>>>> the project gain, both from the user and the developers  
>>>>> standpoints.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Simone Chiaretta
>>>>> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
>>>>> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
>>>>> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
>>>>> twitter: @simonech
>>>>>
>>>>> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
>>>>> magic "Life is short, play hard"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Simone Chiaretta
>>> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
>>> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
>>> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
>>> twitter: @simonech
>>>
>>> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
>>> "Life is short, play hard"
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Simone Chiaretta
>> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
>> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
>> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
>> twitter: @simonech
>>
>> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from  
>> magic "Life
>> is short, play hard"
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Simone Chiaretta
> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> twitter: @simonech
>
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> "Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>]

I think the name must not contain the term Lucene

I'd vote for FPoL.NET (Former Project of Lucene.NET) :D

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Josh Handel <Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com
> wrote:

> LuceneSharp has a nice ring to it. ;-)
>
> Josh
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:16 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> No limitations: just that the project would need to change name as
> Lucene.Net is "owned" by ASF
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Josh Handel <
> Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity.. Is there anything in the Apache License
> > stopping the project from forking and moving over to a more agile (not
> > methodology but in general) open source paradigm?
> >
> > Just saying Lucene.NET can maintain the same mission statement without
> > the project being burdened by the weight of Apache Foundation.. That
> > is unless the Foundation is providing something the community needs.
> >
> > It just seems to me if the Apache Foundation is the difficulty here,
> > transitioning the project & licensing to outside them is the least
> > impacting way to increase the release schedule and show how truly
> > active  this project is.
> >
> > Of course there is always the option to Fork and change direction if
> > the mission statement is where the difficulties are.. I know in my
> > Lucene work, not having a .NET vibe to the API has caused more of a
> > hindrance and confusion than the limited ability to cut and paste java
> > examples has provided to be a boon.. However, I would say that file
> > level compatibility has been pretty beneficial as LUKE is a god send
> > on large projects.. But given Lucenes open source nature, that seems
> > like something that can be maintained regardless of the direction the
> project takes in the future.
> >
> > Josh
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:03 PM
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >
> > I sent an email to Digy yesterday since Phil Haack, from Microsoft,
> > asked the same thing.
> > Seems like MS is interested in keeping this widely project alive.
> >
> > Btw: I just wrote a blog post to raise the awareness:
> >
> > http://codeclimber.net.nz/archive/2010/11/01/Lucene-Net-needs-your-hel
> > p-or-it-will-die.aspx
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Khash Sajadi <kh...@sajadi.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Scott Hansleman of MS is asking me if I have any ideas as to how MS
> > > can help Lucene.NET
> > >
> > > I put the question forward to this mail group.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1 November 2010 17:10, Simone Chiaretta
> > > <simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 01.11.2010 15:20, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Not chasing .NET versions is definitely not the reason why
> > > > >>> Lucene.NET is going back in incubation.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The real reason was pointed out by DIGI: no one stepped out
> > > > >>> for the "dully" work: prepare/publish official releases, home
> > > > >>> page love, interact with the Board,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm not a big fun of politics and bureaucracy but having to
> > > > >> spend time on such things when everybody contribute to
> > > > >> opensource on its own spare time doesn't seem to me the most
> > > > >> effective use of time. If this project was hosted on
> > > > >> codeplex/github/googlecode it would have probably released 10
> versions in the last 2 years.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > ACK. But it seems that this kind of bureaucracy is necessary to
> > > > > comply with Apache Foundation's policy.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The point of my sentence was: it this really necessary? I wrote a
> > > > series
> > > of
> > > > blog post about Lucene.NET and most of the questions I got were
> > > > about the fact that the official site shows that the latest
> > > > release is from 2007
> > > and
> > > > they were thinking it was a dead project.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  Then, another thought:  Most of people have to work with old
> > > > > versions
> > > > >> at their job, so when they contribute to OSS projects they want
> > > > >> to have fun and work on the latest versions.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, you said it: "Most of people have to work with old versions".
> > > > >
> > > > > This implies that an out-of-fun dependency on the latest and
> > > > > greatest framework version would be rather obstructive for
> > > > > real-world projects.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not really: you can still develop using VS2010 and compile on .NET
> > > > 2.0 if you want. And you can build Lucene.Net 3.0 on .NET 4, but
> > > > keep 2.4 or 2.9 on
> > > > 2.0 (which, btw is the same as 3.5)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  Working on a line-by-line port is definitely not fun, add to
> > > > > the mix
> > > > >> that lucene.net is still .net 2.0 and the solution is VS2005
> > > > >> (we are on VS2010 now) and you probably understand why  not
> > > > >> many devs are willing to contribute.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Switching to VS 2008 or 2010 is a painless process that takes
> > > > > about 2 minutes. If someone is scared by so little work then I
> > > > > doubt he/she is really willing to contribute.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's not about the fact itself, is about the perception: if you
> > > > see a solution file that is VS2005 you think that Lucene.Net is
> > > > built of old version of the framework and there is no interest in
> > > > keeping it up to
> > > date.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Let's not try to construct a reason for the current situation
> > > > > because neither the tooling nor Lucene.NET's basic concept led
> > > > > to it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not 100% sure about that: I personally will not contribute to
> > > > a
> > > project
> > > > were most of time goes into running a tool to convert from Java to
> > > > .NET, fix the errors, manually managing the website, releases and
> > > > interacting with the ASF Board
> > > >
> > > > Why do someone have to manually manage all that things when any
> > > > other opensource project hosting gives a easy and effortless to
> > > > maintain
> > > project
> > > > website?
> > > > Why cannot people release a new version when he feels it is ready
> > > > but has to wait for the approval from a "board"?
> > > > Why does a .NET library have to set properties using setter and
> > > > getters
> > > and
> > > > cannot just use "Properties"?
> > > > Why cannot we make a .NET version of Lucene that really follows
> > > > the
> > > idioms
> > > > of .NET (properties, generics, maybe even Linq)?
> > > >
> > > > I keep on pointing at NHibernate as an example: it is feature
> > > > compatible with Hibernate, but feels like a .NET library, not a
> > > > Java
> > library.
> > > > Same goes with NAnt vs Ant.
> > > > Also Log4Net, another Apache project, which is a port of Log4j, is
> > > > not
> > > just
> > > > a mere port, but, as the project description says:
> > > > *"We have kept the framework similar in spirit to the original
> > > > log4j
> > > while
> > > > taking advantage of new features in the .NET runtime."*
> > > >
> > > > I think changing a bit the "project goals" in that sense will make
> > > > the project gain, both from the user and the developers standpoints.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Robert
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Simone Chiaretta
> > > > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > > > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > > > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > > > twitter: @simonech
> > > >
> > > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
> > > > magic "Life is short, play hard"
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Simone Chiaretta
> > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > twitter: @simonech
> >
> > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> > "Life is short, play hard"
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Simone Chiaretta
> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> twitter: @simonech
>
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic "Life
> is short, play hard"
>



-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Josh Handel <Jo...@catapultsystems.com>]

LuceneSharp has a nice ring to it. ;-)

Josh


-----Original Message-----
From: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:16 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

No limitations: just that the project would need to change name as Lucene.Net is "owned" by ASF

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Josh Handel <Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com
> wrote:

> Just out of curiosity.. Is there anything in the Apache License 
> stopping the project from forking and moving over to a more agile (not 
> methodology but in general) open source paradigm?
>
> Just saying Lucene.NET can maintain the same mission statement without 
> the project being burdened by the weight of Apache Foundation.. That 
> is unless the Foundation is providing something the community needs.
>
> It just seems to me if the Apache Foundation is the difficulty here, 
> transitioning the project & licensing to outside them is the least 
> impacting way to increase the release schedule and show how truly 
> active  this project is.
>
> Of course there is always the option to Fork and change direction if 
> the mission statement is where the difficulties are.. I know in my 
> Lucene work, not having a .NET vibe to the API has caused more of a 
> hindrance and confusion than the limited ability to cut and paste java 
> examples has provided to be a boon.. However, I would say that file 
> level compatibility has been pretty beneficial as LUKE is a god send 
> on large projects.. But given Lucenes open source nature, that seems 
> like something that can be maintained regardless of the direction the project takes in the future.
>
> Josh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:03 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> I sent an email to Digy yesterday since Phil Haack, from Microsoft, 
> asked the same thing.
> Seems like MS is interested in keeping this widely project alive.
>
> Btw: I just wrote a blog post to raise the awareness:
>
> http://codeclimber.net.nz/archive/2010/11/01/Lucene-Net-needs-your-hel
> p-or-it-will-die.aspx
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Khash Sajadi <kh...@sajadi.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Scott Hansleman of MS is asking me if I have any ideas as to how MS 
> > can help Lucene.NET
> >
> > I put the question forward to this mail group.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1 November 2010 17:10, Simone Chiaretta 
> > <simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 01.11.2010 15:20, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>> Not chasing .NET versions is definitely not the reason why 
> > > >>> Lucene.NET is going back in incubation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The real reason was pointed out by DIGI: no one stepped out 
> > > >>> for the "dully" work: prepare/publish official releases, home 
> > > >>> page love, interact with the Board,
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm not a big fun of politics and bureaucracy but having to 
> > > >> spend time on such things when everybody contribute to 
> > > >> opensource on its own spare time doesn't seem to me the most 
> > > >> effective use of time. If this project was hosted on 
> > > >> codeplex/github/googlecode it would have probably released 10 versions in the last 2 years.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > ACK. But it seems that this kind of bureaucracy is necessary to 
> > > > comply with Apache Foundation's policy.
> > >
> > >
> > > The point of my sentence was: it this really necessary? I wrote a 
> > > series
> > of
> > > blog post about Lucene.NET and most of the questions I got were 
> > > about the fact that the official site shows that the latest 
> > > release is from 2007
> > and
> > > they were thinking it was a dead project.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  Then, another thought:  Most of people have to work with old 
> > > > versions
> > > >> at their job, so when they contribute to OSS projects they want 
> > > >> to have fun and work on the latest versions.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Well, you said it: "Most of people have to work with old versions".
> > > >
> > > > This implies that an out-of-fun dependency on the latest and 
> > > > greatest framework version would be rather obstructive for 
> > > > real-world projects.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not really: you can still develop using VS2010 and compile on .NET
> > > 2.0 if you want. And you can build Lucene.Net 3.0 on .NET 4, but 
> > > keep 2.4 or 2.9 on
> > > 2.0 (which, btw is the same as 3.5)
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  Working on a line-by-line port is definitely not fun, add to 
> > > > the mix
> > > >> that lucene.net is still .net 2.0 and the solution is VS2005 
> > > >> (we are on VS2010 now) and you probably understand why  not 
> > > >> many devs are willing to contribute.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Switching to VS 2008 or 2010 is a painless process that takes 
> > > > about 2 minutes. If someone is scared by so little work then I 
> > > > doubt he/she is really willing to contribute.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's not about the fact itself, is about the perception: if you 
> > > see a solution file that is VS2005 you think that Lucene.Net is 
> > > built of old version of the framework and there is no interest in 
> > > keeping it up to
> > date.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Let's not try to construct a reason for the current situation 
> > > > because neither the tooling nor Lucene.NET's basic concept led 
> > > > to it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not 100% sure about that: I personally will not contribute to 
> > > a
> > project
> > > were most of time goes into running a tool to convert from Java to 
> > > .NET, fix the errors, manually managing the website, releases and 
> > > interacting with the ASF Board
> > >
> > > Why do someone have to manually manage all that things when any 
> > > other opensource project hosting gives a easy and effortless to 
> > > maintain
> > project
> > > website?
> > > Why cannot people release a new version when he feels it is ready 
> > > but has to wait for the approval from a "board"?
> > > Why does a .NET library have to set properties using setter and 
> > > getters
> > and
> > > cannot just use "Properties"?
> > > Why cannot we make a .NET version of Lucene that really follows 
> > > the
> > idioms
> > > of .NET (properties, generics, maybe even Linq)?
> > >
> > > I keep on pointing at NHibernate as an example: it is feature 
> > > compatible with Hibernate, but feels like a .NET library, not a 
> > > Java
> library.
> > > Same goes with NAnt vs Ant.
> > > Also Log4Net, another Apache project, which is a port of Log4j, is 
> > > not
> > just
> > > a mere port, but, as the project description says:
> > > *"We have kept the framework similar in spirit to the original 
> > > log4j
> > while
> > > taking advantage of new features in the .NET runtime."*
> > >
> > > I think changing a bit the "project goals" in that sense will make 
> > > the project gain, both from the user and the developers standpoints.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Robert
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Simone Chiaretta
> > > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > > twitter: @simonech
> > >
> > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from 
> > > magic "Life is short, play hard"
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Simone Chiaretta
> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> twitter: @simonech
>
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic 
> "Life is short, play hard"
>



--
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic "Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>]

No limitations: just that the project would need to change name as
Lucene.Net is "owned" by ASF

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Josh Handel <Josh.Handel@catapultsystems.com
> wrote:

> Just out of curiosity.. Is there anything in the Apache License stopping
> the project from forking and moving over to a more agile (not methodology
> but in general) open source paradigm?
>
> Just saying Lucene.NET can maintain the same mission statement without the
> project being burdened by the weight of Apache Foundation.. That is unless
> the Foundation is providing something the community needs.
>
> It just seems to me if the Apache Foundation is the difficulty here,
> transitioning the project & licensing to outside them is the least impacting
> way to increase the release schedule and show how truly active  this project
> is.
>
> Of course there is always the option to Fork and change direction if the
> mission statement is where the difficulties are.. I know in my Lucene work,
> not having a .NET vibe to the API has caused more of a hindrance and
> confusion than the limited ability to cut and paste java examples has
> provided to be a boon.. However, I would say that file level compatibility
> has been pretty beneficial as LUKE is a god send on large projects.. But
> given Lucenes open source nature, that seems like something that can be
> maintained regardless of the direction the project takes in the future.
>
> Josh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:03 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> I sent an email to Digy yesterday since Phil Haack, from Microsoft, asked
> the same thing.
> Seems like MS is interested in keeping this widely project alive.
>
> Btw: I just wrote a blog post to raise the awareness:
>
> http://codeclimber.net.nz/archive/2010/11/01/Lucene-Net-needs-your-help-or-it-will-die.aspx
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Khash Sajadi <kh...@sajadi.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Scott Hansleman of MS is asking me if I have any ideas as to how MS
> > can help Lucene.NET
> >
> > I put the question forward to this mail group.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1 November 2010 17:10, Simone Chiaretta <simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 01.11.2010 15:20, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>> Not chasing .NET versions is definitely not the reason why
> > > >>> Lucene.NET is going back in incubation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The real reason was pointed out by DIGI: no one stepped out for
> > > >>> the "dully" work: prepare/publish official releases, home page
> > > >>> love, interact with the Board,
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm not a big fun of politics and bureaucracy but having to spend
> > > >> time on such things when everybody contribute to opensource on
> > > >> its own spare time doesn't seem to me the most effective use of
> > > >> time. If this project was hosted on codeplex/github/googlecode it
> > > >> would have probably released 10 versions in the last 2 years.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > ACK. But it seems that this kind of bureaucracy is necessary to
> > > > comply with Apache Foundation's policy.
> > >
> > >
> > > The point of my sentence was: it this really necessary? I wrote a
> > > series
> > of
> > > blog post about Lucene.NET and most of the questions I got were
> > > about the fact that the official site shows that the latest release
> > > is from 2007
> > and
> > > they were thinking it was a dead project.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  Then, another thought:  Most of people have to work with old
> > > > versions
> > > >> at their job, so when they contribute to OSS projects they want
> > > >> to have fun and work on the latest versions.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Well, you said it: "Most of people have to work with old versions".
> > > >
> > > > This implies that an out-of-fun dependency on the latest and
> > > > greatest framework version would be rather obstructive for
> > > > real-world projects.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not really: you can still develop using VS2010 and compile on .NET
> > > 2.0 if you want. And you can build Lucene.Net 3.0 on .NET 4, but
> > > keep 2.4 or 2.9 on
> > > 2.0 (which, btw is the same as 3.5)
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  Working on a line-by-line port is definitely not fun, add to the
> > > > mix
> > > >> that lucene.net is still .net 2.0 and the solution is VS2005 (we
> > > >> are on VS2010 now) and you probably understand why  not many devs
> > > >> are willing to contribute.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Switching to VS 2008 or 2010 is a painless process that takes
> > > > about 2 minutes. If someone is scared by so little work then I
> > > > doubt he/she is really willing to contribute.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's not about the fact itself, is about the perception: if you see
> > > a solution file that is VS2005 you think that Lucene.Net is built of
> > > old version of the framework and there is no interest in keeping it
> > > up to
> > date.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Let's not try to construct a reason for the current situation
> > > > because neither the tooling nor Lucene.NET's basic concept led to
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not 100% sure about that: I personally will not contribute to a
> > project
> > > were most of time goes into running a tool to convert from Java to
> > > .NET, fix the errors, manually managing the website, releases and
> > > interacting with the ASF Board
> > >
> > > Why do someone have to manually manage all that things when any
> > > other opensource project hosting gives a easy and effortless to
> > > maintain
> > project
> > > website?
> > > Why cannot people release a new version when he feels it is ready
> > > but has to wait for the approval from a "board"?
> > > Why does a .NET library have to set properties using setter and
> > > getters
> > and
> > > cannot just use "Properties"?
> > > Why cannot we make a .NET version of Lucene that really follows the
> > idioms
> > > of .NET (properties, generics, maybe even Linq)?
> > >
> > > I keep on pointing at NHibernate as an example: it is feature
> > > compatible with Hibernate, but feels like a .NET library, not a Java
> library.
> > > Same goes with NAnt vs Ant.
> > > Also Log4Net, another Apache project, which is a port of Log4j, is
> > > not
> > just
> > > a mere port, but, as the project description says:
> > > *"We have kept the framework similar in spirit to the original log4j
> > while
> > > taking advantage of new features in the .NET runtime."*
> > >
> > > I think changing a bit the "project goals" in that sense will make
> > > the project gain, both from the user and the developers standpoints.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Robert
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Simone Chiaretta
> > > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > > twitter: @simonech
> > >
> > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> > > "Life is short, play hard"
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Simone Chiaretta
> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> twitter: @simonech
>
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic "Life
> is short, play hard"
>



-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Josh Handel <Jo...@catapultsystems.com>]

Just out of curiosity.. Is there anything in the Apache License stopping the project from forking and moving over to a more agile (not methodology but in general) open source paradigm? 

Just saying Lucene.NET can maintain the same mission statement without the project being burdened by the weight of Apache Foundation.. That is unless the Foundation is providing something the community needs.

It just seems to me if the Apache Foundation is the difficulty here, transitioning the project & licensing to outside them is the least impacting way to increase the release schedule and show how truly active  this project is.

Of course there is always the option to Fork and change direction if the mission statement is where the difficulties are.. I know in my Lucene work, not having a .NET vibe to the API has caused more of a hindrance and confusion than the limited ability to cut and paste java examples has provided to be a boon.. However, I would say that file level compatibility has been pretty beneficial as LUKE is a god send on large projects.. But given Lucenes open source nature, that seems like something that can be maintained regardless of the direction the project takes in the future.

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:03 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

I sent an email to Digy yesterday since Phil Haack, from Microsoft, asked the same thing.
Seems like MS is interested in keeping this widely project alive.

Btw: I just wrote a blog post to raise the awareness:
http://codeclimber.net.nz/archive/2010/11/01/Lucene-Net-needs-your-help-or-it-will-die.aspx



On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Khash Sajadi <kh...@sajadi.co.uk> wrote:

> Scott Hansleman of MS is asking me if I have any ideas as to how MS 
> can help Lucene.NET
>
> I put the question forward to this mail group.
>
>
>
> On 1 November 2010 17:10, Simone Chiaretta <simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On 01.11.2010 15:20, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> Not chasing .NET versions is definitely not the reason why 
> > >>> Lucene.NET is going back in incubation.
> > >>>
> > >>> The real reason was pointed out by DIGI: no one stepped out for 
> > >>> the "dully" work: prepare/publish official releases, home page 
> > >>> love, interact with the Board,
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I'm not a big fun of politics and bureaucracy but having to spend 
> > >> time on such things when everybody contribute to opensource on 
> > >> its own spare time doesn't seem to me the most effective use of 
> > >> time. If this project was hosted on codeplex/github/googlecode it 
> > >> would have probably released 10 versions in the last 2 years.
> > >>
> > >
> > > ACK. But it seems that this kind of bureaucracy is necessary to 
> > > comply with Apache Foundation's policy.
> >
> >
> > The point of my sentence was: it this really necessary? I wrote a 
> > series
> of
> > blog post about Lucene.NET and most of the questions I got were 
> > about the fact that the official site shows that the latest release 
> > is from 2007
> and
> > they were thinking it was a dead project.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >  Then, another thought:  Most of people have to work with old 
> > > versions
> > >> at their job, so when they contribute to OSS projects they want 
> > >> to have fun and work on the latest versions.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Well, you said it: "Most of people have to work with old versions".
> > >
> > > This implies that an out-of-fun dependency on the latest and 
> > > greatest framework version would be rather obstructive for 
> > > real-world projects.
> > >
> >
> > Not really: you can still develop using VS2010 and compile on .NET 
> > 2.0 if you want. And you can build Lucene.Net 3.0 on .NET 4, but 
> > keep 2.4 or 2.9 on
> > 2.0 (which, btw is the same as 3.5)
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >  Working on a line-by-line port is definitely not fun, add to the 
> > > mix
> > >> that lucene.net is still .net 2.0 and the solution is VS2005 (we 
> > >> are on VS2010 now) and you probably understand why  not many devs 
> > >> are willing to contribute.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Switching to VS 2008 or 2010 is a painless process that takes 
> > > about 2 minutes. If someone is scared by so little work then I 
> > > doubt he/she is really willing to contribute.
> > >
> >
> > It's not about the fact itself, is about the perception: if you see 
> > a solution file that is VS2005 you think that Lucene.Net is built of 
> > old version of the framework and there is no interest in keeping it 
> > up to
> date.
> >
> >
> > > Let's not try to construct a reason for the current situation 
> > > because neither the tooling nor Lucene.NET's basic concept led to 
> > > it.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not 100% sure about that: I personally will not contribute to a
> project
> > were most of time goes into running a tool to convert from Java to 
> > .NET, fix the errors, manually managing the website, releases and 
> > interacting with the ASF Board
> >
> > Why do someone have to manually manage all that things when any 
> > other opensource project hosting gives a easy and effortless to 
> > maintain
> project
> > website?
> > Why cannot people release a new version when he feels it is ready 
> > but has to wait for the approval from a "board"?
> > Why does a .NET library have to set properties using setter and 
> > getters
> and
> > cannot just use "Properties"?
> > Why cannot we make a .NET version of Lucene that really follows the
> idioms
> > of .NET (properties, generics, maybe even Linq)?
> >
> > I keep on pointing at NHibernate as an example: it is feature 
> > compatible with Hibernate, but feels like a .NET library, not a Java library.
> > Same goes with NAnt vs Ant.
> > Also Log4Net, another Apache project, which is a port of Log4j, is 
> > not
> just
> > a mere port, but, as the project description says:
> > *"We have kept the framework similar in spirit to the original log4j
> while
> > taking advantage of new features in the .NET runtime."*
> >
> > I think changing a bit the "project goals" in that sense will make 
> > the project gain, both from the user and the developers standpoints.
> >
> >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Simone Chiaretta
> > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > twitter: @simonech
> >
> > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic 
> > "Life is short, play hard"
> >
>



--
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic "Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>]

I sent an email to Digy yesterday since Phil Haack, from Microsoft, asked
the same thing.
Seems like MS is interested in keeping this widely project alive.

Btw: I just wrote a blog post to raise the awareness:
http://codeclimber.net.nz/archive/2010/11/01/Lucene-Net-needs-your-help-or-it-will-die.aspx



On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Khash Sajadi <kh...@sajadi.co.uk> wrote:

> Scott Hansleman of MS is asking me if I have any ideas as to how MS can
> help
> Lucene.NET
>
> I put the question forward to this mail group.
>
>
>
> On 1 November 2010 17:10, Simone Chiaretta <simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On 01.11.2010 15:20, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> Not chasing .NET versions is definitely not the reason why
> > >>> Lucene.NET is going back in incubation.
> > >>>
> > >>> The real reason was pointed out by DIGI: no one stepped out
> > >>> for the "dully" work: prepare/publish official releases,
> > >>> home page love, interact with the Board,
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I'm not a big fun of politics and bureaucracy but having to spend time
> > >> on such things when everybody contribute to opensource on its own
> > >> spare time doesn't seem to me the most effective use of time. If this
> > >> project was hosted on codeplex/github/googlecode it would have
> > >> probably released 10 versions in the last 2 years.
> > >>
> > >
> > > ACK. But it seems that this kind of bureaucracy is necessary
> > > to comply with Apache Foundation's policy.
> >
> >
> > The point of my sentence was: it this really necessary? I wrote a series
> of
> > blog post about Lucene.NET and most of the questions I got were about the
> > fact that the official site shows that the latest release is from 2007
> and
> > they were thinking it was a dead project.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >  Then, another thought:  Most of people have to work with old versions
> > >> at their job, so when they contribute to OSS projects they want to
> > >> have fun and work on the latest versions.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Well, you said it: "Most of people have to work with old versions".
> > >
> > > This implies that an out-of-fun dependency on the latest and
> > > greatest framework version would be rather obstructive for
> > > real-world projects.
> > >
> >
> > Not really: you can still develop using VS2010 and compile on .NET 2.0 if
> > you want. And you can build Lucene.Net 3.0 on .NET 4, but keep 2.4 or 2.9
> > on
> > 2.0 (which, btw is the same as 3.5)
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >  Working on a line-by-line port is definitely not fun, add to the mix
> > >> that lucene.net is still .net 2.0 and the solution is VS2005 (we are
> > >> on VS2010 now) and you probably understand why  not many devs are
> > >> willing to contribute.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Switching to VS 2008 or 2010 is a painless process that takes
> > > about 2 minutes. If someone is scared by so little work then
> > > I doubt he/she is really willing to contribute.
> > >
> >
> > It's not about the fact itself, is about the perception: if you see a
> > solution file that is VS2005 you think that Lucene.Net is built of old
> > version of the framework and there is no interest in keeping it up to
> date.
> >
> >
> > > Let's not try to construct a reason for the current situation
> > > because neither the tooling nor Lucene.NET's basic concept
> > > led to it.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not 100% sure about that: I personally will not contribute to a
> project
> > were most of time goes into running a tool to convert from Java to .NET,
> > fix
> > the errors, manually managing the website, releases and interacting with
> > the
> > ASF Board
> >
> > Why do someone have to manually manage all that things when any other
> > opensource project hosting gives a easy and effortless to maintain
> project
> > website?
> > Why cannot people release a new version when he feels it is ready but has
> > to
> > wait for the approval from a "board"?
> > Why does a .NET library have to set properties using setter and getters
> and
> > cannot just use "Properties"?
> > Why cannot we make a .NET version of Lucene that really follows the
> idioms
> > of .NET (properties, generics, maybe even Linq)?
> >
> > I keep on pointing at NHibernate as an example: it is feature compatible
> > with Hibernate, but feels like a .NET library, not a Java library.
> > Same goes with NAnt vs Ant.
> > Also Log4Net, another Apache project, which is a port of Log4j, is not
> just
> > a mere port, but, as the project description says:
> > *"We have kept the framework similar in spirit to the original log4j
> while
> > taking advantage of new features in the .NET runtime."*
> >
> > I think changing a bit the "project goals" in that sense will make the
> > project gain, both from the user and the developers standpoints.
> >
> >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Simone Chiaretta
> > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > twitter: @simonech
> >
> > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> > "Life is short, play hard"
> >
>



-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Khash Sajadi <kh...@sajadi.co.uk>]

Scott Hansleman of MS is asking me if I have any ideas as to how MS can help
Lucene.NET

I put the question forward to this mail group.



On 1 November 2010 17:10, Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > On 01.11.2010 15:20, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> Not chasing .NET versions is definitely not the reason why
> >>> Lucene.NET is going back in incubation.
> >>>
> >>> The real reason was pointed out by DIGI: no one stepped out
> >>> for the "dully" work: prepare/publish official releases,
> >>> home page love, interact with the Board,
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm not a big fun of politics and bureaucracy but having to spend time
> >> on such things when everybody contribute to opensource on its own
> >> spare time doesn't seem to me the most effective use of time. If this
> >> project was hosted on codeplex/github/googlecode it would have
> >> probably released 10 versions in the last 2 years.
> >>
> >
> > ACK. But it seems that this kind of bureaucracy is necessary
> > to comply with Apache Foundation's policy.
>
>
> The point of my sentence was: it this really necessary? I wrote a series of
> blog post about Lucene.NET and most of the questions I got were about the
> fact that the official site shows that the latest release is from 2007 and
> they were thinking it was a dead project.
>
>
> >
> >
> >  Then, another thought:  Most of people have to work with old versions
> >> at their job, so when they contribute to OSS projects they want to
> >> have fun and work on the latest versions.
> >>
> >
> > Well, you said it: "Most of people have to work with old versions".
> >
> > This implies that an out-of-fun dependency on the latest and
> > greatest framework version would be rather obstructive for
> > real-world projects.
> >
>
> Not really: you can still develop using VS2010 and compile on .NET 2.0 if
> you want. And you can build Lucene.Net 3.0 on .NET 4, but keep 2.4 or 2.9
> on
> 2.0 (which, btw is the same as 3.5)
>
>
> >
> >
> >  Working on a line-by-line port is definitely not fun, add to the mix
> >> that lucene.net is still .net 2.0 and the solution is VS2005 (we are
> >> on VS2010 now) and you probably understand why  not many devs are
> >> willing to contribute.
> >>
> >
> > Switching to VS 2008 or 2010 is a painless process that takes
> > about 2 minutes. If someone is scared by so little work then
> > I doubt he/she is really willing to contribute.
> >
>
> It's not about the fact itself, is about the perception: if you see a
> solution file that is VS2005 you think that Lucene.Net is built of old
> version of the framework and there is no interest in keeping it up to date.
>
>
> > Let's not try to construct a reason for the current situation
> > because neither the tooling nor Lucene.NET's basic concept
> > led to it.
> >
>
> I'm not 100% sure about that: I personally will not contribute to a project
> were most of time goes into running a tool to convert from Java to .NET,
> fix
> the errors, manually managing the website, releases and interacting with
> the
> ASF Board
>
> Why do someone have to manually manage all that things when any other
> opensource project hosting gives a easy and effortless to maintain project
> website?
> Why cannot people release a new version when he feels it is ready but has
> to
> wait for the approval from a "board"?
> Why does a .NET library have to set properties using setter and getters and
> cannot just use "Properties"?
> Why cannot we make a .NET version of Lucene that really follows the idioms
> of .NET (properties, generics, maybe even Linq)?
>
> I keep on pointing at NHibernate as an example: it is feature compatible
> with Hibernate, but feels like a .NET library, not a Java library.
> Same goes with NAnt vs Ant.
> Also Log4Net, another Apache project, which is a port of Log4j, is not just
> a mere port, but, as the project description says:
> *"We have kept the framework similar in spirit to the original log4j while
> taking advantage of new features in the .NET runtime."*
>
> I think changing a bit the "project goals" in that sense will make the
> project gain, both from the user and the developers standpoints.
>
>
> > Robert
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Simone Chiaretta
> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> twitter: @simonech
>
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> "Life is short, play hard"
>

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Jeff Rodenburg <je...@gmail.com>]

I would like to offer a bit of perspective on why (IMHO) the Lucene.Net
project has struggled. I am a former committer on Lucene.Net from years ago,
and my participation fell off mostly due to the chosen strategy in
maintaining a port of the Java-based Lucene library.

At the time I was a committer, .Net 2.0 had just been released (within 3
months, if I recall). In discussion among the community, I was an advocate
for moving the Lucene.Net codebase to a more .Net-centric implementation. C#
2.0 had many improvements over the 1.1 version (i.e. generics), and I wanted
our project to take advantage of those improvements.

The discussion over future direction was more about logistics than
philosophy. Community members who advocated against a .Net-optimized basis
argued that keeping the Lucene.Net codebase on par line-by-line with the
Java-based project would facilitate easier maintenance of the codebase over
time; as the Java version received improvements, one could implement the
same in C#, and the project would benefit all the same. There is some merit
to the point from a theoretical standpoint, but in practicality it didn't
hold true. While the Java-based version went down a path, the C# version
continued to struggle to keep up.

The philosophical discussion is important to consider: if the only purpose
of the Lucene.Net codebase is to mirror the original Java-based version,
what's the point of maintaining a replica? The best-case scenario is the
introduction of unnecessary bugs in the ported codebase due to translation
of the Java-based original files. This grows in significance over time as
Java and C# become quite different languages with different runtime
characteristics.

At this stage, I would argue that mirroring the Java-based version in C#
line-by-line carries more risk than it does benefit. And because of the
current approach, the project is held back from community participation.

Jeff Rodenburg
Seattle, WA





-----Original Message-----
From: Simone Chiaretta [mailto:simone.chiaretta@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:10 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

> Why cannot we make a .NET version of Lucene that really follows the idioms
of .NET (properties, generics, maybe even Linq)?

-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net> wrote:

> On 01.11.2010 15:20, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
>
>>
>>> Not chasing .NET versions is definitely not the reason why
>>> Lucene.NET is going back in incubation.
>>>
>>> The real reason was pointed out by DIGI: no one stepped out
>>> for the "dully" work: prepare/publish official releases,
>>> home page love, interact with the Board,
>>>
>>
>> I'm not a big fun of politics and bureaucracy but having to spend time
>> on such things when everybody contribute to opensource on its own
>> spare time doesn't seem to me the most effective use of time. If this
>> project was hosted on codeplex/github/googlecode it would have
>> probably released 10 versions in the last 2 years.
>>
>
> ACK. But it seems that this kind of bureaucracy is necessary
> to comply with Apache Foundation's policy.


The point of my sentence was: it this really necessary? I wrote a series of
blog post about Lucene.NET and most of the questions I got were about the
fact that the official site shows that the latest release is from 2007 and
they were thinking it was a dead project.


>
>
>  Then, another thought:  Most of people have to work with old versions
>> at their job, so when they contribute to OSS projects they want to
>> have fun and work on the latest versions.
>>
>
> Well, you said it: "Most of people have to work with old versions".
>
> This implies that an out-of-fun dependency on the latest and
> greatest framework version would be rather obstructive for
> real-world projects.
>

Not really: you can still develop using VS2010 and compile on .NET 2.0 if
you want. And you can build Lucene.Net 3.0 on .NET 4, but keep 2.4 or 2.9 on
2.0 (which, btw is the same as 3.5)


>
>
>  Working on a line-by-line port is definitely not fun, add to the mix
>> that lucene.net is still .net 2.0 and the solution is VS2005 (we are
>> on VS2010 now) and you probably understand why  not many devs are
>> willing to contribute.
>>
>
> Switching to VS 2008 or 2010 is a painless process that takes
> about 2 minutes. If someone is scared by so little work then
> I doubt he/she is really willing to contribute.
>

It's not about the fact itself, is about the perception: if you see a
solution file that is VS2005 you think that Lucene.Net is built of old
version of the framework and there is no interest in keeping it up to date.


> Let's not try to construct a reason for the current situation
> because neither the tooling nor Lucene.NET's basic concept
> led to it.
>

I'm not 100% sure about that: I personally will not contribute to a project
were most of time goes into running a tool to convert from Java to .NET, fix
the errors, manually managing the website, releases and interacting with the
ASF Board

Why do someone have to manually manage all that things when any other
opensource project hosting gives a easy and effortless to maintain project
website?
Why cannot people release a new version when he feels it is ready but has to
wait for the approval from a "board"?
Why does a .NET library have to set properties using setter and getters and
cannot just use "Properties"?
Why cannot we make a .NET version of Lucene that really follows the idioms
of .NET (properties, generics, maybe even Linq)?

I keep on pointing at NHibernate as an example: it is feature compatible
with Hibernate, but feels like a .NET library, not a Java library.
Same goes with NAnt vs Ant.
Also Log4Net, another Apache project, which is a port of Log4j, is not just
a mere port, but, as the project description says:
*"We have kept the framework similar in spirit to the original log4j while
taking advantage of new features in the .NET runtime."*

I think changing a bit the "project goals" in that sense will make the
project gain, both from the user and the developers standpoints.


> Robert
>
>


-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net>]

On 01.11.2010 15:20, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
>>
>> Not chasing .NET versions is definitely not the reason why
>> Lucene.NET is going back in incubation.
>>
>> The real reason was pointed out by DIGI: no one stepped out
>> for the "dully" work: prepare/publish official releases,
>> home page love, interact with the Board,
>
> I'm not a big fun of politics and bureaucracy but having to spend time
> on such things when everybody contribute to opensource on its own
> spare time doesn't seem to me the most effective use of time. If this
> project was hosted on codeplex/github/googlecode it would have
> probably released 10 versions in the last 2 years.

ACK. But it seems that this kind of bureaucracy is necessary
to comply with Apache Foundation's policy.

> Then, another thought:  Most of people have to work with old versions
> at their job, so when they contribute to OSS projects they want to
> have fun and work on the latest versions.

Well, you said it: "Most of people have to work with old versions".

This implies that an out-of-fun dependency on the latest and
greatest framework version would be rather obstructive for
real-world projects.

> Working on a line-by-line port is definitely not fun, add to the mix
> that lucene.net is still .net 2.0 and the solution is VS2005 (we are
> on VS2010 now) and you probably understand why  not many devs are
> willing to contribute.

Switching to VS 2008 or 2010 is a painless process that takes
about 2 minutes. If someone is scared by so little work then
I doubt he/she is really willing to contribute.

Let's not try to construct a reason for the current situation
because neither the tooling nor Lucene.NET's basic concept
led to it.

Robert

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>]

>
> Not chasing .NET versions is definitely not the reason why
> Lucene.NET is going back in incubation.
>
> The real reason was pointed out by DIGI: no one stepped out
> for the "dully" work: prepare/publish official releases,
> home page love, interact with the Board,

I'm not a big fun of politics and bureaucracy but having to spend time
on such things when everybody contribute to opensource on its own
spare time doesn't seem to me the most effective use of time. If this
project was hosted on codeplex/github/googlecode it would have
probably released 10 versions in the last 2 years.


Then, another thought:  Most of people have to work with old versions
at their job, so when they contribute to OSS projects they want to
have fun and work on the latest versions.
Working on a line-by-line port is definitely not fun, add to the mix
that lucene.net is still .net 2.0 and the solution is VS2005 (we are
on VS2010 now) and you probably understand why  not many devs are
willing to contribute.

That's just my 2c

Simone

-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Robert Jordan <ro...@gmx.net>]

On 01.11.2010 10:57, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
> 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.

You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene
with a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
search" then you're looking at the wrong project.

> 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

I fail to see any need for .NET 4 or even .NET 3.5. There is only
one case where .NET 4 could be useful and a couple of other
cases for .NET 3.5.

Not chasing .NET versions is definitely not the reason why
Lucene.NET is going back in incubation.

The real reason was pointed out by DIGI: no one stepped out
for the "dully" work: prepare/publish official releases,
home page love, interact with the Board, etc.

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

This is Lucene.NET's goal.

Robert

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Ciaran Roarty <ci...@gmail.com>]

Hi

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
forever.

Ciaran

On 29 October 2010 21:48, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> 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

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Ciaran Roarty <ci...@gmail.com>]

Hi

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
forever.

Ciaran

On 29 October 2010 21:48, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org> 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

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Aaron Powell <me...@aaron-powell.com>]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be really disappointed to loose
Lucene.Net from the .Net communities toolbox.

I'd be happy to offer up my services to keep the project alive. I'll admit I
don't know much about the way projects are run under the Apache umbrella,
but I'm keen to ensure that Lucene.Net doesn't die :).
Aaron Powell
Umbraco Ninja

http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com


On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>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

Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

[Aaron Powell <me...@aaron-powell.com>]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be really disappointed to loose
Lucene.Net from the .Net communities toolbox.

I'd be happy to offer up my services to keep the project alive. I'll admit I
don't know much about the way projects are run under the Apache umbrella,
but I'm keen to ensure that Lucene.Net doesn't die :).
Aaron Powell
Umbraco Ninja

http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com


On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>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

RE: Lucene.NET Community Status

[George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>]

Hi Grant and all,

I will get engaged with the project again.  The way I see it, by the end of
the year, we must:

1) Clean up the website, and / or
2) Create an official release off the current trunk, and
3) Sometimes next year, port the most current version of Java Lucene.

If by the end of the year, if we don't manage #1 and / or #2, Lucene.Net
should be at the mercy of Apache's PMC.

The key for our success is for the community working together -- we can't
have few folks doing the heavy lifting of the project.

Regards,

-- George


-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:48 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Lucene mailing list; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
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=