Dear Jan, thanks for your explanations. > PyLucene is driven by its own community, and user involvement and > contributions is a must. I’m quite familiar with community contributions - have already submitted code and feedback, tested Pylucene releases, did provide support to other users and voted several times for new releases.
> The (sub)project will survive only to the extent that its current users > invest in it. so is this different to how the main (Java)Lucene project works? just curious … > 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. > That’s first time I hear this (bad) news. So if Andi is no longer an active user - who is the maintainer of PyLucene/JCC? > 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. We developed and provided the patch (which already took some time) for review and further adaption and really hope now for other users to step in. This is our current position for several reasons an after internal discussions which I cannot disclose here. Sorry. On the other hand, if we’d be the only user(s) interested/willing to push Python3 support (and Pylucene/JCC as a whole) then this project could not survive anyway I fear. best regards, Thomas — > Am 06.01.2017 um 12:32 schrieb Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com>: > > 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.
