On Fri, 6 Jan 2017, Jan Høydahl wrote:
Hi,
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.
PyLucene is driven by its own community, and user involvement and contributions
is a must.
The (sub)project will survive only to the extent that its current users invest
in it.
So if some funding is required to get this going ?
For an ASF Open Source Project, the only thing that is required to get going is
user/developer
involvement and teamwork. While Andi started the project due to needs at the
time, and became
a committer, he is no longer an active user, so perhaps time has come for other
users to step ut and take
responsibility.
How ?funding? would look like in the Python3 case is not so much sending money
to the ASF,
but more for individual companies like your own, to sponsor (through developer
time) the major
work on the patch, and driving it through to completion. Hopefully other users
will contribute along
the way too.
You will of course need help from experienced developers, but the ideal
situation is that after
a couple of such patches that get committed, you (or the developer working on
the code) will be nominated
as committer and can continue developing PyLucene without the need for Andi or
any other one individual.
There has been some discussions about the future of PyLucene on this list but I
still didn't see any conclusion/decision
The discussion sparked some new development and a release, which is a success.
So the decission I guess is to keep PyLucene alive and try to strengthen the
community.
As long as the project continues to produce releases, it is (somewhat) alive.
If on the other hand another year or two goes by without another release, I?m
sure the PMC will take action again.
I intend to produce a PyLucene 6.4 release once Lucene 6.4 is done.
It's been a few months now...
Andi..
--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
6. jan. 2017 kl. 10.34 skrev Thomas Koch <k...@orbiteam.de>:
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..
