On Fri, 6 Jan 2017, Andi Vajda wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2017, Jan HC8ydahl 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...
Lucene 6.4.0 was released on Monday. I did a quick test build of PyLucene
with that code and it required no changes at all. Given that a Lucene 6.4.1
bugfix release is around the corner, I'll wait until it is released to send
a PyLucene 6.4.1 release candidate for vote.
Andi..
Andi..
--
Jan HC8ydahl, 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..
