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 20:27:17 GMT
No rush. This is just something that needs to get settled
before the next release in the 1.x series.

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++






-----Original Message-----
From: Julien Nioche <lists.digitalpebble@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, September 1, 2014 1:10 PM
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

>Let's wait a couple of weeks before voting on this. I know Sebastian is
>on holiday until the 12th and there might be more people in this case.
>
>On 1 September 2014 17:34, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
><chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>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
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>
>Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>
>http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
>http://www.digitalpebble.com
>http://twitter.com/digitalpebble
>
>


Mime
View raw message