You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@nutch.apache.org by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com> on 2012/04/25 10:46:22 UTC
Suitable naming for > Nutchgora branch?
Good Morning,
Does anyone have a differing opinion on naming next development track for
Nutchgora branch 2.1?
Before I set and classify most issues it would be good to know.
Thank you
Lewis
--
*Lewis*
Re: Suitable naming for > Nutchgora branch?
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Great work Lewis, thanks!
Cheers,
Chris
On Apr 25, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Lewis John Mcgibbney wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> As you guys will have seen I've quickly polluted our dev list again (sorry!!!) with set and classify for 2.1.
>
> The open issues for 2.0 are ones which I think we could address within the 2.0 release. This is merely my opinion, based upon the assertion that they all contain patches which could be up for review. With the exception of NUTCH-879 which is pretty alarming. I'll test shortly.
>
> I'm now away to bed.
>
> Best
>
> Lewis
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Suitable naming for > Nutchgora branch?
Posted by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com>.
Hi Everyone,
As you guys will have seen I've quickly polluted our dev list again
(sorry!!!) with set and classify for 2.1.
The open issues for 2.0 are ones which I think we could address within the
2.0 release. This is merely my opinion, based upon the assertion that they
all contain patches which could be up for review. With the exception of
NUTCH-879 which is pretty alarming. I'll test shortly.
I'm now away to bed.
Best
Lewis
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
>
Re: Suitable naming for > Nutchgora branch?
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Guys,
Yep I think we've beat the dead horse here about the name :)
This is a good recent discussion/summary: http://s.apache.org/CoY
and I think it had some productive outcomes. I envision a world in
which we keep releasing the current 1.x series until we get up to 1.9,
and then hopefully in parallel release a set of 2.x (eventually release
2.9 if we get that far) and either 3.x is the merge of 1.x and 2.x, or
1.x becomes 3.x and we leapfrog 2.x to 4.x, etc etc.
IOW, releasing from branches with active maintainers is absolutely
fine and encouraged within Apache. NutchGora right now has at least
Ferdy and Lewis (and you can count me in even though my support
for the moment is limited to RM'ing) so that's ~3, the trunk has Julien, Markus, Lewis,
myself and others so that's 4+ active peeps, so both branches have plenty
of people who care deeply about releasing Nutch and kicking butt. So
we're all good here.
Net: here's a productive next step for nutchgora. Let's simply release it.
There is nothing preventing us from doing that. If 3 +1s come in from
Nutch PMC members, we can release :) I'd be happy to RM it, as I
stated in http://s.apache.org/CoY so let's move forward especially
now that there is a Gora 0.2 release (hat tip, Lewis).
Cheers,
Chris
P.S. Yes, and by the way, self-flails, let's release Nutch 1.5 and get
on with that too! *grin*
On Apr 25, 2012, at 6:22 AM, Julien Nioche wrote:
>
> I must say that since the move of Nutchgora from trunk to branch it's kind of odd that it's still referred to as 2.x. (For now that's okay I guess).
>
> Moving it from the trunk made a lot of sense and has been abundantly discussed on this list. We had one stable version which is actively maintained and currently used by most people (1.x) and an experimental one largely untested and used by a minority (2.x). Hopefully when nutchgora (for which 2.x is a better name indeed) has had a couple of releases and is used by a larger number of people it will naturally find its place as trunk but for now since most releases are based on 1.x I think the latter should remain the trunk
>
> Julien
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Morning,
>
> Does anyone have a differing opinion on naming next development track for Nutchgora branch 2.1?
>
> Before I set and classify most issues it would be good to know.
>
> Thank you
>
> Lewis
>
> --
> Lewis
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>
> http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
> http://www.digitalpebble.com
> http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Suitable naming for > Nutchgora branch?
Posted by Julien Nioche <li...@gmail.com>.
> I must say that since the move of Nutchgora from trunk to branch it's kind
> of odd that it's still referred to as 2.x. (For now that's okay I guess).
>
Moving it from the trunk made a lot of sense and has been abundantly
discussed on this list. We had one stable version which is actively
maintained and currently used by most people (1.x) and an experimental one
largely untested and used by a minority (2.x). Hopefully when nutchgora
(for which 2.x is a better name indeed) has had a couple of releases and is
used by a larger number of people it will naturally find its place as trunk
but for now since most releases are based on 1.x I think the latter should
remain the trunk
Julien
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Morning,
>
> Does anyone have a differing opinion on naming next development track for
> Nutchgora branch 2.1?
>
> Before I set and classify most issues it would be good to know.
>
> Thank you
>
> Lewis
>
> --
> *Lewis*
>
>
--
*
*Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
http://www.digitalpebble.com
http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
Re: Suitable naming for > Nutchgora branch?
Posted by Ferdy Galema <fe...@kalooga.com>.
Hi Lewis,
2.1 is fine with me. This is assuming 2.x is a good naming scheme in the
first place. I must say that since the move of Nutchgora from trunk to
branch it's kind of odd that it's still referred to as 2.x. (For now that's
okay I guess).
Ferdy
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney <
lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Morning,
>
> Does anyone have a differing opinion on naming next development track for
> Nutchgora branch 2.1?
>
> Before I set and classify most issues it would be good to know.
>
> Thank you
>
> Lewis
>
> --
> *Lewis*
>
>