Dear Andi, I’ve just sent the link to the public gist with the patch to Petrus and this list. As mentioned by Oliver we’d be more than happy if a core developer of JCC/PyLucene could review the patch and decide what to do with it. It has been developed without intimate knowledge of JCC with the goal to make PyLucene(36) usable with Python3. It may have some issues or need improvements (also cf. "IMPORTANT NOTES" in my last email about current limitations of the patch). That’s where export review (and effort) is needed.
For the future of course a port to newer versions of JCC/PyLucene would be more than valuable. I think what Oliver wanted to express is that we don’t have that much deep know how of JCC and can thus can only provide initial efforts and contributions, but for production/release ready code an export review is still needed. Also we haven’t watched the development of newer versions of PyLucene as we’re still stuck with PyLucene36. I hope you didn’t get this wrong! We all appreciate the existence of JCC/PyLucene and especially all the effort you’ve put into this. However, I fear that Python 3 support is a must-have for a Python tool or library that's available today: - Python3 is here to stay! (py3.6 has just been released) - Most of the popular Python packages do meanwhile provide Python3 support - cf. http://py3readiness.org <http://py3readiness.org/> - Python2 support will end by 2020 (sounds far away but isn't - cf. https://pythonclock.org <https://pythonclock.org/> ) There has been some discussions about the future of PyLucene on this list but I still didn't see any conclusion/decision. Without a transparent roadmap and ongoing development (i.e. new releases, Python3 support etc.) the usage of JCC/PyLucene is most likely unattractive for developers who start a new project and this is where the user base shrinks and further contributions are stalled (somehow a chicken-egg-problem). I'm not sure how far the ASF may help here, but I've read that the Python Software Foundation occasionally funds projects to port libraries that are widely used but don't have enough of a community to do a port. cf. https://developers.slashdot.org/story/13/08/25/2115204/interviews-guido-van-rossum-answers-your-questions <https://developers.slashdot.org/story/13/08/25/2115204/interviews-guido-van-rossum-answers-your-questions> So if some funding is required to get this going ... best regards, Thomas — > Am 04.01.2017 um 19:41 schrieb Andi Vajda <va...@apache.org>: > >> >> Note that PyLucene currently lacks official Python3 support! >> We've done a port of PyLucene 3.6 (!) to support Python3 and offered the >> patches needed to JCC and PyLucene for use/review on the list - but didn't >> get any feedback so far. >> cf. >> https://www.mail-archive.com/pylucene-dev@lucene.apache.org/msg02167.html >> <https://www.mail-archive.com/pylucene-dev@lucene.apache.org/msg02167.html> >> <https://www.mail-archive.com/pylucene-dev@lucene.apache.org/msg02167.html >> <https://www.mail-archive.com/pylucene-dev@lucene.apache.org/msg02167.html>> > > Indeed, re-reading this thread, I remember now. There is no patch attached > and the tone of the contribution offer is a little off putting. It comes > across more as a one time abandon-ware contribution as something with authors > standing behind ready to respond to code review comments. I have a similar > python 3 jcc patch sitting in an svn branch that could be revived. I've > stated in the past that I intended to do so but lacked time. Interest in a > Python 3 jcc has been scant so I haven't put much priority into this task. > > Andi.. > >
