You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@nutch.apache.org by Julien Nioche <li...@gmail.com> on 2014/09/01 11:23:48 UTC
Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9
Hi chaps,
-1 from me. IMHO moving the trunk code to 3.x does not really solve the
issue. I'd rather make it more explicit that the standard Nutch (1.x) and
Nutch-GORA (2.x) are two separate beasts for instance by referring to 2.x
as Nutch-GORA in the artifacts we release. This way users won't assume
believe that one is superior to the other. We can keep the same SVN
branches (trunk + 2.x) and use the minor version numbers as a reflection of
the amount of changes produced in the code.
Changing to 3.x would imply a major change of architecture or
functionality, which certainly won't be the case for the next release of
the trunk. When users ask "what is the difference between 3.x and 1.x?"
we'd have to answer "not much", and more importantly when asked "what is
the difference between 3.x and 2.x?" we'd reply "same as between 1.x and
2.x" ;-) Changing the name of the artefacts would clarify things.
This reminds me that our FAQ does not really answer these questions (and
other basic ones), will post about this separately.
Julien
On 29 August 2014 17:34, Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> N.B. move to dev@
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:40 AM, <us...@nutch.apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> +1, great.
>>
>> I'd like to have a conversation about versioning.
>>
>> Since we're at 1.9, my suggestion would be to have the
>> next in the trunk series (1.x) move to version 3.x post
>> 1.9 for the release.
>>
>
> Based on the discussion from which this new thread stems I would totally
> be behind this. It breathes new life into trunk. Which is a bonnie feather
> in the Nutch bonnet. Here is my +1 on that one.
>
>
>>
>> Nutch2 remains Nutch and can be worked on there. That
>> would give us a nice split in the diversionary branch
>> paths for Nutch.
>>
>>
> +1
>
--
Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
http://www.digitalpebble.com
http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9
Posted by Julien Nioche <li...@gmail.com>.
Hi Talat
See
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nutch-user/201408.mbox/%3CD025DC24.1793F7%25chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov%3E
for
some background.
Julien
On 1 September 2014 14:25, Talat Uyarer <ta...@uyarer.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry I was away while a long time. I could miss some talks. If it is
> that, please notice me. But I wonder Why do you consider our version
> numbering. Why do you continue 1.10 for next release of 1.9 ? IMHO 2.x
> branch is online version of Nutch 1.x. If they has some feature
> differences, this is our mistake. I will try to close this difference
> between 1.x with 2.x
>
> "Changing to 3.x would imply a major change of architecture or
> functionality, which certainly won't be the case for the next release of
> the trunk. " I agree with Julien.
>
> IMHO Opinion We do not need any changes.
>
> Talat
>
>
> 2014-09-01 12:23 GMT+03:00 Julien Nioche <li...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi chaps,
>>
>> -1 from me. IMHO moving the trunk code to 3.x does not really solve the
>> issue. I'd rather make it more explicit that the standard Nutch (1.x) and
>> Nutch-GORA (2.x) are two separate beasts for instance by referring to 2.x
>> as Nutch-GORA in the artifacts we release. This way users won't assume
>> believe that one is superior to the other. We can keep the same SVN
>> branches (trunk + 2.x) and use the minor version numbers as a reflection of
>> the amount of changes produced in the code.
>>
>> Changing to 3.x would imply a major change of architecture or
>> functionality, which certainly won't be the case for the next release of
>> the trunk. When users ask "what is the difference between 3.x and 1.x?"
>> we'd have to answer "not much", and more importantly when asked "what is
>> the difference between 3.x and 2.x?" we'd reply "same as between 1.x and
>> 2.x" ;-) Changing the name of the artefacts would clarify things.
>>
>> This reminds me that our FAQ does not really answer these questions (and
>> other basic ones), will post about this separately.
>>
>> Julien
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 29 August 2014 17:34, Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> N.B. move to dev@
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:40 AM, <us...@nutch.apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1, great.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to have a conversation about versioning.
>>>>
>>>> Since we're at 1.9, my suggestion would be to have the
>>>> next in the trunk series (1.x) move to version 3.x post
>>>> 1.9 for the release.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Based on the discussion from which this new thread stems I would totally
>>> be behind this. It breathes new life into trunk. Which is a bonnie feather
>>> in the Nutch bonnet. Here is my +1 on that one.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nutch2 remains Nutch and can be worked on there. That
>>>> would give us a nice split in the diversionary branch
>>>> paths for Nutch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>>
>> http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
>> http://www.digitalpebble.com
>> http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Talat UYARER
> Websitesi: http://talat.uyarer.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/talatuyarer
> Linkedin: http://tr.linkedin.com/pub/talat-uyarer/10/142/304
>
--
Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
http://www.digitalpebble.com
http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9
Posted by Talat Uyarer <ta...@uyarer.com>.
Hi all,
Sorry I was away while a long time. I could miss some talks. If it is that,
please notice me. But I wonder Why do you consider our version numbering.
Why do you continue 1.10 for next release of 1.9 ? IMHO 2.x branch is
online version of Nutch 1.x. If they has some feature differences, this is
our mistake. I will try to close this difference between 1.x with 2.x
"Changing to 3.x would imply a major change of architecture or
functionality, which certainly won't be the case for the next release of
the trunk. " I agree with Julien.
IMHO Opinion We do not need any changes.
Talat
2014-09-01 12:23 GMT+03:00 Julien Nioche <li...@gmail.com>:
> Hi chaps,
>
> -1 from me. IMHO moving the trunk code to 3.x does not really solve the
> issue. I'd rather make it more explicit that the standard Nutch (1.x) and
> Nutch-GORA (2.x) are two separate beasts for instance by referring to 2.x
> as Nutch-GORA in the artifacts we release. This way users won't assume
> believe that one is superior to the other. We can keep the same SVN
> branches (trunk + 2.x) and use the minor version numbers as a reflection of
> the amount of changes produced in the code.
>
> Changing to 3.x would imply a major change of architecture or
> functionality, which certainly won't be the case for the next release of
> the trunk. When users ask "what is the difference between 3.x and 1.x?"
> we'd have to answer "not much", and more importantly when asked "what is
> the difference between 3.x and 2.x?" we'd reply "same as between 1.x and
> 2.x" ;-) Changing the name of the artefacts would clarify things.
>
> This reminds me that our FAQ does not really answer these questions (and
> other basic ones), will post about this separately.
>
> Julien
>
>
>
>
> On 29 August 2014 17:34, Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> N.B. move to dev@
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:40 AM, <us...@nutch.apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1, great.
>>>
>>> I'd like to have a conversation about versioning.
>>>
>>> Since we're at 1.9, my suggestion would be to have the
>>> next in the trunk series (1.x) move to version 3.x post
>>> 1.9 for the release.
>>>
>>
>> Based on the discussion from which this new thread stems I would totally
>> be behind this. It breathes new life into trunk. Which is a bonnie feather
>> in the Nutch bonnet. Here is my +1 on that one.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Nutch2 remains Nutch and can be worked on there. That
>>> would give us a nice split in the diversionary branch
>>> paths for Nutch.
>>>
>>>
>> +1
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>
> http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
> http://www.digitalpebble.com
> http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
>
--
Talat UYARER
Websitesi: http://talat.uyarer.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/talatuyarer
Linkedin: http://tr.linkedin.com/pub/talat-uyarer/10/142/304
Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Sure please send an email to dev-unsubscribe@nutch.apache.org.
Cheers,
Chris
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message-----
From: Suleman <sh...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <de...@nutch.apache.org>
Date: Monday, September 1, 2014 1:31 PM
To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <de...@nutch.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9
>Hi
>Can you please tell me how to unregister this group?
>Best regards
>Sulman
>On 2 Sep 2014 01:11, "Julien Nioche" <li...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>Let's wait a couple of weeks before voting on this. I know Sebastian is
>on holiday until the 12th and there might be more people in this case.
>
>On 1 September 2014 17:34, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
><ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>Hi Julien,
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Julien Nioche <li...@gmail.com>
>Reply-To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <de...@nutch.apache.org>
>Date: Monday, September 1, 2014 2:23 AM
>To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <de...@nutch.apache.org>
>Cc: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>Subject: Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9
>
>>Hi chaps,
>>
>>
>>-1 from me. IMHO moving the trunk code to 3.x does not really solve the
>>issue. I'd rather make it more explicit that the standard Nutch (1.x) and
>>Nutch-GORA (2.x) are two separate beasts for instance by referring to 2.x
>>as Nutch-GORA in the artifacts we
>> release. This way users won't assume believe that one is superior to the
>>other. We can keep the same SVN branches (trunk + 2.x) and use the minor
>>version numbers as a reflection of the amount of changes produced in the
>>code.
>
>
>It has nothing to do with being superior? Was Apache Tomcat 6 superior to
>Apache Tomcat 5? No, it had nothing to do with it - they were completely
>separate architectures. Heck Apache Tomcat 7 was a place where some of
>the architectural concepts from 5 and 6 met in the middle - that's
>precisely what I am proposing here.
>
>We've just completed the development line of the 1.x series by releasing
>1.9. 2.x is still going. They each do different things - 1.x is more
>scalable.
>2.x has more flexibility but is harder to install. It's not about one
>being
>superior to one another.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Changing to 3.x would imply a major change of architecture or
>>functionality, which certainly won't be the case for the next release of
>>the trunk.
>
>
>Not really - all it would imply is the end of the 1.x branch-line, without
>merging into the 2.x branch line.
>
>>When users ask "what is the difference between 3.x and 1.x?" we'd have to
>>answer "not much", and more importantly
>> when asked "what is the difference between 3.x and 2.x?" we'd reply
>>"same as between 1.x and 2.x" ;-) Changing the name of the artefacts
>>would clarify things.
>
>
>So what? Answering user questions from time to time is not a huge deal. I
>answer
>them from my students all the time in teaching them Apache Nutch in my
>search
>engines class, or more recently with the JPL folks deploying it for our
>internal
>CIO search.
>
>>
>>
>>This reminds me that our FAQ does not really answer these questions (and
>>other basic ones), will post about this separately.
>
>
>Well if you are -1 on the renaming to 3.x, we'll have to figure something
>out.
>I'm -1 on renaming the artifacts to Nutch-Gora - so maybe what we need is
>a
>ballot with a few options and we can put it to a VOTE for the committee.
>
>I'll wait a few days to let this settle before calling such a VOTE.
>
>Cheers,
>Chris
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 29 August 2014 17:34, Lewis John Mcgibbney
>><le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hi Chris,
>>
>>
>>N.B. move to dev@
>>
>>
>>On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:40 AM, <us...@nutch.apache.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>+1, great.
>>
>>I'd like to have a conversation about versioning.
>>
>>Since we're at 1.9, my suggestion would be to have the
>>next in the trunk series (1.x) move to version 3.x post
>>1.9 for the release.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Based on the discussion from which this new thread stems I would totally
>>be behind this. It breathes new life into trunk. Which is a bonnie
>>feather in the Nutch bonnet. Here is my +1 on that one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Nutch2 remains Nutch and can be worked on there. That
>>would give us a nice split in the diversionary branch
>>paths for Nutch.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>+1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>
>>Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>>
>>http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
>>http://www.digitalpebble.com
>>http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>
>http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
>http://www.digitalpebble.com
>http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9
Posted by Suleman <sh...@gmail.com>.
Hi
Can you please tell me how to unregister this group?
Best regards
Sulman
On 2 Sep 2014 01:11, "Julien Nioche" <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's wait a couple of weeks before voting on this. I know Sebastian is on
> holiday until the 12th and there might be more people in this case.
>
> On 1 September 2014 17:34, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
> chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> Hi Julien,
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Julien Nioche <li...@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <de...@nutch.apache.org>
>> Date: Monday, September 1, 2014 2:23 AM
>> To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <de...@nutch.apache.org>
>> Cc: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9
>>
>> >Hi chaps,
>> >
>> >
>> >-1 from me. IMHO moving the trunk code to 3.x does not really solve the
>> >issue. I'd rather make it more explicit that the standard Nutch (1.x) and
>> >Nutch-GORA (2.x) are two separate beasts for instance by referring to 2.x
>> >as Nutch-GORA in the artifacts we
>> > release. This way users won't assume believe that one is superior to the
>> >other. We can keep the same SVN branches (trunk + 2.x) and use the minor
>> >version numbers as a reflection of the amount of changes produced in the
>> >code.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with being superior? Was Apache Tomcat 6 superior to
>> Apache Tomcat 5? No, it had nothing to do with it - they were completely
>> separate architectures. Heck Apache Tomcat 7 was a place where some of
>> the architectural concepts from 5 and 6 met in the middle - that's
>> precisely what I am proposing here.
>>
>> We've just completed the development line of the 1.x series by releasing
>> 1.9. 2.x is still going. They each do different things - 1.x is more
>> scalable.
>> 2.x has more flexibility but is harder to install. It's not about one
>> being
>> superior to one another.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Changing to 3.x would imply a major change of architecture or
>> >functionality, which certainly won't be the case for the next release of
>> >the trunk.
>>
>> Not really - all it would imply is the end of the 1.x branch-line, without
>> merging into the 2.x branch line.
>>
>> >When users ask "what is the difference between 3.x and 1.x?" we'd have to
>> >answer "not much", and more importantly
>> > when asked "what is the difference between 3.x and 2.x?" we'd reply
>> >"same as between 1.x and 2.x" ;-) Changing the name of the artefacts
>> >would clarify things.
>>
>> So what? Answering user questions from time to time is not a huge deal. I
>> answer
>> them from my students all the time in teaching them Apache Nutch in my
>> search
>> engines class, or more recently with the JPL folks deploying it for our
>> internal
>> CIO search.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >This reminds me that our FAQ does not really answer these questions (and
>> >other basic ones), will post about this separately.
>>
>> Well if you are -1 on the renaming to 3.x, we'll have to figure something
>> out.
>> I'm -1 on renaming the artifacts to Nutch-Gora - so maybe what we need is
>> a
>> ballot with a few options and we can put it to a VOTE for the committee.
>>
>> I'll wait a few days to let this settle before calling such a VOTE.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 29 August 2014 17:34, Lewis John Mcgibbney
>> ><le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Hi Chris,
>> >
>> >
>> >N.B. move to dev@
>> >
>> >
>> >On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:40 AM, <us...@nutch.apache.org>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >+1, great.
>> >
>> >I'd like to have a conversation about versioning.
>> >
>> >Since we're at 1.9, my suggestion would be to have the
>> >next in the trunk series (1.x) move to version 3.x post
>> >1.9 for the release.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Based on the discussion from which this new thread stems I would totally
>> >be behind this. It breathes new life into trunk. Which is a bonnie
>> >feather in the Nutch bonnet. Here is my +1 on that one.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Nutch2 remains Nutch and can be worked on there. That
>> >would give us a nice split in the diversionary branch
>> >paths for Nutch.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >+1
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >
>> >Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>> >
>> >http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
>> >http://www.digitalpebble.com
>> >http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>
> http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
> http://www.digitalpebble.com
> http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
>
Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
No rush. This is just something that needs to get settled
before the next release in the 1.x series.
Cheers,
Chris
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message-----
From: Julien Nioche <li...@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, September 1, 2014 1:10 PM
To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <de...@nutch.apache.org>
Cc: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9
>Let's wait a couple of weeks before voting on this. I know Sebastian is
>on holiday until the 12th and there might be more people in this case.
>
>On 1 September 2014 17:34, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
><ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>Hi Julien,
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Julien Nioche <li...@gmail.com>
>Reply-To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <de...@nutch.apache.org>
>Date: Monday, September 1, 2014 2:23 AM
>To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <de...@nutch.apache.org>
>Cc: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
>Subject: Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9
>
>>Hi chaps,
>>
>>
>>-1 from me. IMHO moving the trunk code to 3.x does not really solve the
>>issue. I'd rather make it more explicit that the standard Nutch (1.x) and
>>Nutch-GORA (2.x) are two separate beasts for instance by referring to 2.x
>>as Nutch-GORA in the artifacts we
>> release. This way users won't assume believe that one is superior to the
>>other. We can keep the same SVN branches (trunk + 2.x) and use the minor
>>version numbers as a reflection of the amount of changes produced in the
>>code.
>
>
>It has nothing to do with being superior? Was Apache Tomcat 6 superior to
>Apache Tomcat 5? No, it had nothing to do with it - they were completely
>separate architectures. Heck Apache Tomcat 7 was a place where some of
>the architectural concepts from 5 and 6 met in the middle - that's
>precisely what I am proposing here.
>
>We've just completed the development line of the 1.x series by releasing
>1.9. 2.x is still going. They each do different things - 1.x is more
>scalable.
>2.x has more flexibility but is harder to install. It's not about one
>being
>superior to one another.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Changing to 3.x would imply a major change of architecture or
>>functionality, which certainly won't be the case for the next release of
>>the trunk.
>
>
>Not really - all it would imply is the end of the 1.x branch-line, without
>merging into the 2.x branch line.
>
>>When users ask "what is the difference between 3.x and 1.x?" we'd have to
>>answer "not much", and more importantly
>> when asked "what is the difference between 3.x and 2.x?" we'd reply
>>"same as between 1.x and 2.x" ;-) Changing the name of the artefacts
>>would clarify things.
>
>
>So what? Answering user questions from time to time is not a huge deal. I
>answer
>them from my students all the time in teaching them Apache Nutch in my
>search
>engines class, or more recently with the JPL folks deploying it for our
>internal
>CIO search.
>
>>
>>
>>This reminds me that our FAQ does not really answer these questions (and
>>other basic ones), will post about this separately.
>
>
>Well if you are -1 on the renaming to 3.x, we'll have to figure something
>out.
>I'm -1 on renaming the artifacts to Nutch-Gora - so maybe what we need is
>a
>ballot with a few options and we can put it to a VOTE for the committee.
>
>I'll wait a few days to let this settle before calling such a VOTE.
>
>Cheers,
>Chris
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 29 August 2014 17:34, Lewis John Mcgibbney
>><le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hi Chris,
>>
>>
>>N.B. move to dev@
>>
>>
>>On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:40 AM, <us...@nutch.apache.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>+1, great.
>>
>>I'd like to have a conversation about versioning.
>>
>>Since we're at 1.9, my suggestion would be to have the
>>next in the trunk series (1.x) move to version 3.x post
>>1.9 for the release.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Based on the discussion from which this new thread stems I would totally
>>be behind this. It breathes new life into trunk. Which is a bonnie
>>feather in the Nutch bonnet. Here is my +1 on that one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Nutch2 remains Nutch and can be worked on there. That
>>would give us a nice split in the diversionary branch
>>paths for Nutch.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>+1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>
>>Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>>
>>http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
>>http://www.digitalpebble.com
>>http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>
>http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
>http://www.digitalpebble.com
>http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
>
>
Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9
Posted by Julien Nioche <li...@gmail.com>.
Let's wait a couple of weeks before voting on this. I know Sebastian is on
holiday until the 12th and there might be more people in this case.
On 1 September 2014 17:34, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julien Nioche <li...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <de...@nutch.apache.org>
> Date: Monday, September 1, 2014 2:23 AM
> To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <de...@nutch.apache.org>
> Cc: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9
>
> >Hi chaps,
> >
> >
> >-1 from me. IMHO moving the trunk code to 3.x does not really solve the
> >issue. I'd rather make it more explicit that the standard Nutch (1.x) and
> >Nutch-GORA (2.x) are two separate beasts for instance by referring to 2.x
> >as Nutch-GORA in the artifacts we
> > release. This way users won't assume believe that one is superior to the
> >other. We can keep the same SVN branches (trunk + 2.x) and use the minor
> >version numbers as a reflection of the amount of changes produced in the
> >code.
>
> It has nothing to do with being superior? Was Apache Tomcat 6 superior to
> Apache Tomcat 5? No, it had nothing to do with it - they were completely
> separate architectures. Heck Apache Tomcat 7 was a place where some of
> the architectural concepts from 5 and 6 met in the middle - that's
> precisely what I am proposing here.
>
> We've just completed the development line of the 1.x series by releasing
> 1.9. 2.x is still going. They each do different things - 1.x is more
> scalable.
> 2.x has more flexibility but is harder to install. It's not about one being
> superior to one another.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Changing to 3.x would imply a major change of architecture or
> >functionality, which certainly won't be the case for the next release of
> >the trunk.
>
> Not really - all it would imply is the end of the 1.x branch-line, without
> merging into the 2.x branch line.
>
> >When users ask "what is the difference between 3.x and 1.x?" we'd have to
> >answer "not much", and more importantly
> > when asked "what is the difference between 3.x and 2.x?" we'd reply
> >"same as between 1.x and 2.x" ;-) Changing the name of the artefacts
> >would clarify things.
>
> So what? Answering user questions from time to time is not a huge deal. I
> answer
> them from my students all the time in teaching them Apache Nutch in my
> search
> engines class, or more recently with the JPL folks deploying it for our
> internal
> CIO search.
>
> >
> >
> >This reminds me that our FAQ does not really answer these questions (and
> >other basic ones), will post about this separately.
>
> Well if you are -1 on the renaming to 3.x, we'll have to figure something
> out.
> I'm -1 on renaming the artifacts to Nutch-Gora - so maybe what we need is
> a
> ballot with a few options and we can put it to a VOTE for the committee.
>
> I'll wait a few days to let this settle before calling such a VOTE.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On 29 August 2014 17:34, Lewis John Mcgibbney
> ><le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Hi Chris,
> >
> >
> >N.B. move to dev@
> >
> >
> >On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:40 AM, <us...@nutch.apache.org>
> >wrote:
> >
> >+1, great.
> >
> >I'd like to have a conversation about versioning.
> >
> >Since we're at 1.9, my suggestion would be to have the
> >next in the trunk series (1.x) move to version 3.x post
> >1.9 for the release.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Based on the discussion from which this new thread stems I would totally
> >be behind this. It breathes new life into trunk. Which is a bonnie
> >feather in the Nutch bonnet. Here is my +1 on that one.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Nutch2 remains Nutch and can be worked on there. That
> >would give us a nice split in the diversionary branch
> >paths for Nutch.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >+1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
> >
> >http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
> >http://www.digitalpebble.com
> >http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
> >
>
>
--
Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
http://www.digitalpebble.com
http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Julien,
-----Original Message-----
From: Julien Nioche <li...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <de...@nutch.apache.org>
Date: Monday, September 1, 2014 2:23 AM
To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <de...@nutch.apache.org>
Cc: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9
>Hi chaps,
>
>
>-1 from me. IMHO moving the trunk code to 3.x does not really solve the
>issue. I'd rather make it more explicit that the standard Nutch (1.x) and
>Nutch-GORA (2.x) are two separate beasts for instance by referring to 2.x
>as Nutch-GORA in the artifacts we
> release. This way users won't assume believe that one is superior to the
>other. We can keep the same SVN branches (trunk + 2.x) and use the minor
>version numbers as a reflection of the amount of changes produced in the
>code.
It has nothing to do with being superior? Was Apache Tomcat 6 superior to
Apache Tomcat 5? No, it had nothing to do with it - they were completely
separate architectures. Heck Apache Tomcat 7 was a place where some of
the architectural concepts from 5 and 6 met in the middle - that's
precisely what I am proposing here.
We've just completed the development line of the 1.x series by releasing
1.9. 2.x is still going. They each do different things - 1.x is more
scalable.
2.x has more flexibility but is harder to install. It's not about one being
superior to one another.
>
>
>
>Changing to 3.x would imply a major change of architecture or
>functionality, which certainly won't be the case for the next release of
>the trunk.
Not really - all it would imply is the end of the 1.x branch-line, without
merging into the 2.x branch line.
>When users ask "what is the difference between 3.x and 1.x?" we'd have to
>answer "not much", and more importantly
> when asked "what is the difference between 3.x and 2.x?" we'd reply
>"same as between 1.x and 2.x" ;-) Changing the name of the artefacts
>would clarify things.
So what? Answering user questions from time to time is not a huge deal. I
answer
them from my students all the time in teaching them Apache Nutch in my
search
engines class, or more recently with the JPL folks deploying it for our
internal
CIO search.
>
>
>This reminds me that our FAQ does not really answer these questions (and
>other basic ones), will post about this separately.
Well if you are -1 on the renaming to 3.x, we'll have to figure something
out.
I'm -1 on renaming the artifacts to Nutch-Gora - so maybe what we need is
a
ballot with a few options and we can put it to a VOTE for the committee.
I'll wait a few days to let this settle before calling such a VOTE.
Cheers,
Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 29 August 2014 17:34, Lewis John Mcgibbney
><le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hi Chris,
>
>
>N.B. move to dev@
>
>
>On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:40 AM, <us...@nutch.apache.org>
>wrote:
>
>+1, great.
>
>I'd like to have a conversation about versioning.
>
>Since we're at 1.9, my suggestion would be to have the
>next in the trunk series (1.x) move to version 3.x post
>1.9 for the release.
>
>
>
>
>Based on the discussion from which this new thread stems I would totally
>be behind this. It breathes new life into trunk. Which is a bonnie
>feather in the Nutch bonnet. Here is my +1 on that one.
>
>
>
>
>Nutch2 remains Nutch and can be worked on there. That
>would give us a nice split in the diversionary branch
>paths for Nutch.
>
>
>
>
>+1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>
>http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
>http://www.digitalpebble.com
>http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
>