nutch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9
Date Mon, 01 Sep 2014 16:34:27 GMT
Hi Julien,



-----Original Message-----
From: Julien Nioche <lists.digitalpebble@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <dev@nutch.apache.org>
Date: Monday, September 1, 2014 2:23 AM
To: "dev@nutch.apache.org" <dev@nutch.apache.org>
Cc: Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Jump to 3.X WAS [RELEASE] Apache Nutch 1.9

>Hi chaps, 
>
>
>-1 from me. IMHO moving the trunk code to 3.x does not really solve the
>issue. I'd rather make it more explicit that the standard Nutch (1.x) and
>Nutch-GORA (2.x) are two separate beasts for instance by referring to 2.x
>as Nutch-GORA in the artifacts we
> release. This way users won't assume believe that one is superior to the
>other. We can keep the same SVN branches (trunk + 2.x) and use the minor
>version numbers as a reflection of the amount of changes produced in the
>code.

It has nothing to do with being superior? Was Apache Tomcat 6 superior to
Apache Tomcat 5? No, it had nothing to do with it - they were completely
separate architectures. Heck Apache Tomcat 7 was a place where some of
the architectural concepts from 5 and 6 met in the middle - that's
precisely what I am proposing here.

We've just completed the development line of the 1.x series by releasing
1.9. 2.x is still going. They each do different things - 1.x is more
scalable.
2.x has more flexibility but is harder to install. It's not about one being
superior to one another.

> 
>
>
>Changing to 3.x would imply a major change of architecture or
>functionality, which certainly won't be the case for the next release of
>the trunk. 

Not really - all it would imply is the end of the 1.x branch-line, without
merging into the 2.x branch line.

>When users ask "what is the difference between 3.x and 1.x?" we'd have to
>answer "not much", and more importantly
> when asked "what is the difference between 3.x and 2.x?" we'd reply
>"same as between 1.x and 2.x" ;-) Changing the name of the artefacts
>would clarify things.

So what? Answering user questions from time to time is not a huge deal. I
answer
them from my students all the time in teaching them Apache Nutch in my
search
engines class, or more recently with the JPL folks deploying it for our
internal
CIO search. 

>
>
>This reminds me that our FAQ does not really answer these questions (and
>other basic ones), will post about this separately.

Well if you are -1 on the renaming to 3.x, we'll have to figure something
out.
I'm -1 on renaming the artifacts to Nutch-Gora - so maybe what we need is
a 
ballot with a few options and we can put it to a VOTE for the committee.

I'll wait a few days to let this settle before calling such a VOTE.

Cheers,
Chris



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 29 August 2014 17:34, Lewis John Mcgibbney
><lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hi Chris,
>
>
>N.B. move to dev@
>
>
>On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:40 AM, <user-digest-help@nutch.apache.org>
>wrote:
>
>+1, great.
>
>I'd like to have a conversation about versioning.
>
>Since we're at 1.9, my suggestion would be to have the
>next in the trunk series (1.x) move to version 3.x post
>1.9 for the release.
>
>
>
>
>Based on the discussion from which this new thread stems I would totally
>be behind this. It breathes new life into trunk. Which is a bonnie
>feather in the Nutch bonnet. Here is my +1 on that one.
>
> 
>
>
>Nutch2 remains Nutch and can be worked on there. That
>would give us a nice split in the diversionary branch
>paths for Nutch.
>
>
>
>
>+1 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>
>Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>
>http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
>http://www.digitalpebble.com
>http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
>


Mime
View raw message