Hi,

Following the discussions [1] on the dev-list about the future of Nutch 2.0,
I would like to call for a vote on moving Nutch 2.0 from the trunk to a
separate branch, promote 1.4 to trunk and consider 2.0 as unmaintained. The
arguments for / against can be found in the thread I mentioned.

The vote is open for the next 72 hours.

[ ] +1 : Shelve 2.0 and move 1.4 to trunk
[] 0 : No opinion
[] -1 : Bad idea.  Please give justification.

Thanks

Julien

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00483.html<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nutch-dev/201109.mbox/%3CCA+[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E>

--
*
*Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering

http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
http://www.digitalpebble.com

+1

> Hi,
>
> Following the discussions [1] on the dev-list about the future of Nutch
> 2.0, I would like to call for a vote on moving Nutch 2.0 from the trunk to
> a separate branch, promote 1.4 to trunk and consider 2.0 as unmaintained.
> The arguments for / against can be found in the thread I mentioned.
>
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 : Shelve 2.0 and move 1.4 to trunk
> [] 0 : No opinion
> [] -1 : Bad idea.  Please give justification.
>
> Thanks
>
> Julien
>
> [1]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00483.html<ht
> tp://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nutch-dev/201109.mbox/%3CCA+-fM0tJ2K
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E>

+1

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Julien Nioche <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Following the discussions [1] on the dev-list about the future of Nutch
> 2.0, I would like to call for a vote on moving Nutch 2.0 from the trunk to a
> separate branch, promote 1.4 to trunk and consider 2.0 as unmaintained. The
> arguments for / against can be found in the thread I mentioned.
>
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 : Shelve 2.0 and move 1.4 to trunk
> [] 0 : No opinion
> [] -1 : Bad idea.  Please give justification.
>
> Thanks
>
> Julien
>
> [1]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00483.html<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nutch-dev/201109.mbox/%3CCA+[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E>
>
> --
> *
> *Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>
> http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
> http://www.digitalpebble.com
>

On Sep 18, 2011, at 2:21 AM, Julien Nioche wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Following the discussions [1] on the dev-list about the future of Nutch 2.0, I would like to call for a vote on moving Nutch 2.0 from the trunk to a separate branch, promote 1.4 to trunk and consider 2.0 as unmaintained. The arguments for / against can be found in the thread I mentioned.
>
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours.
>
> [X ] +1 : Shelve 2.0 and move 1.4 to trunk
> [] 0 : No opinion
> [] -1 : Bad idea.  Please give justification.
>

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi,

[X ] +1 : Shelve 2.0 and move 1.4 to trunk
[] 0 : No opinion
[] -1 : Bad idea.  Please give justification.

Thank you

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sep 18, 2011, at 2:21 AM, Julien Nioche wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Following the discussions [1] on the dev-list about the future of Nutch
> 2.0, I would like to call for a vote on moving Nutch 2.0 from the trunk to a
> separate branch, promote 1.4 to trunk and consider 2.0 as unmaintained. The
> arguments for / against can be found in the thread I mentioned.
> >
> > The vote is open for the next 72 hours.
> >
> > [X ] +1 : Shelve 2.0 and move 1.4 to trunk
> > [] 0 : No opinion
> > [] -1 : Bad idea.  Please give justification.
> >
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
--
*Lewis*

-1

I don't want to mark release 2.0 as unmaintained. Cassandra backend
works really well for us and fixed performance problems with hadoop
database. Instead of moving it out trunk, recruit more ppl should come
and fix open problems. don't give up.

+1

On 09/18/2011 04:21 AM, Julien Nioche wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following the discussions [1] on the dev-list about the future of
> Nutch 2.0, I would like to call for a vote on moving Nutch 2.0 from
> the trunk to a separate branch, promote 1.4 to trunk and consider 2.0
> as unmaintained. The arguments for / against can be found in the
> thread I mentioned.
>
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 : Shelve 2.0 and move 1.4 to trunk
> [] 0 : No opinion
> [] -1 : Bad idea.  Please give justification.
>
> Thanks
>
> Julien
>
> [1]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00483.html <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nutch-dev/201109.mbox/%3CCA+[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E>
>
> --
> *
> *Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>
> http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
> http://www.digitalpebble.com

Here is my vote :

 +1 : Shelve 2.0 and move 1.4 to trunk

Julien

On 18 September 2011 10:21, Julien Nioche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Following the discussions [1] on the dev-list about the future of Nutch
> 2.0, I would like to call for a vote on moving Nutch 2.0 from the trunk to a
> separate branch, promote 1.4 to trunk and consider 2.0 as unmaintained. The
> arguments for / against can be found in the thread I mentioned.
>
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 : Shelve 2.0 and move 1.4 to trunk
> [] 0 : No opinion
> [] -1 : Bad idea.  Please give justification.
>
> Thanks
>
> Julien
>
> [1]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00483.html<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nutch-dev/201109.mbox/%3CCA+[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E>
>
> --
> *
> *Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>
> http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
> http://www.digitalpebble.com
>

--
*
*Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering

http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
http://www.digitalpebble.com

My vote is thumbs down: -1

I am only involved in Nutch 2.0 and that would be put the back burner...

Please read these articles if you struggle with using Nutch 2.0, and give
feedback so that we can improve the doc/code/architecture.

Nutch 2.0 (trunk)
http://techvineyard.blogspot.com/2010/12/build-nutch-20.html

Gora
http://techvineyard.blogspot.com/2011/02/gora-orm-framework-for-hadoop-jobs.html

I'm glad to hear that there at least 2 people in the community that do
business in their field and proudly use a Nutch-based crawler together with
Cassandra to store the data through Gora. That would not have been possible
with Nutch 1.x version.

Maybe this has been widely discussed already. IMOO, crawl segments are
hard-to-maintain and easily lost. If you want to do that HDFS is what you
are looking for. Even Yahoo has given up and is now using Microsoft updated
crawl information in order to implement search. They use HBase which is, by
the way, Nutch 2.0 compatible.

Take at look:
http://developer.yahoo.com/events/hadoopsummit2011/agenda.html#22 (sorry I
don't think any video of the summit is available yet, not sure why)

Alexis
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Julien Nioche <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Here is my vote :
>
>  +1 : Shelve 2.0 and move 1.4 to trunk
>
> Julien
>
>
> On 18 September 2011 10:21, Julien Nioche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Following the discussions [1] on the dev-list about the future of Nutch
>> 2.0, I would like to call for a vote on moving Nutch 2.0 from the trunk to a
>> separate branch, promote 1.4 to trunk and consider 2.0 as unmaintained. The
>> arguments for / against can be found in the thread I mentioned.
>>
>> The vote is open for the next 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1 : Shelve 2.0 and move 1.4 to trunk
>> [] 0 : No opinion
>> [] -1 : Bad idea.  Please give justification.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Julien
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00483.html<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nutch-dev/201109.mbox/%3CCA+[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E>
>>
>> --
>> *
>> *Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>>
>> http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
>> http://www.digitalpebble.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *
> *Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>
> http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
> http://www.digitalpebble.com
>

Hi Alexis,

A few comments below :

My vote is thumbs down: -1
>
> I am only involved in Nutch 2.0 and that would be put the back burner...
>

It has never left it so that's not much of a change :-) Nutch 2.0 (and GORA)
has had more than a year to gather momentum and it hasn't.

More seriously,  as Chris explained people will still be able to work on 2.0
if they want to, the code is moved, not RE-moved. The other aspect of the
change is that we won't keep necessarily 1.x sync with 2.0 - it has been a
complete pain to have to maintain two branches at the same time and most
people (judging by the votes) are fed up with it. We are making good
progress on 1.x and 2.0 should not be hold us back.

Again if people have the time and inclination to work on 2.0 then they will
still be able to do so.

[...]
>
> I'm glad to hear that there at least 2 people in the community that do
> business in their field and proudly use a Nutch-based crawler together with
> Cassandra to store the data through Gora. That would not have been possible
> with Nutch 1.x version.
>

Not clear what you mean by not possible with Nutch 1. From a functionality
point of view there is nothing in 2.0 that you can't do with 1.x, the
reverse is not true (e.g. multiple outputs for parse) + 2.0 has a large
number of bugs and is not fit for use in production

I am sure that there are more than 2 users of  Nutch 2.0 out there but
that's after more than a year of having Nutch in trunk and is quite small
compared to the number of users of 1.x
>
> Maybe this has been widely discussed already. IMOO, crawl segments are
> hard-to-maintain and easily lost. If you want to do that HDFS is what you
> are looking for. Even Yahoo has given up and is now using Microsoft updated
> crawl information in order to implement search. They use HBase which is, by
> the way, Nutch 2.0 compatible.
>

> Take at look:
> http://developer.yahoo.com/events/hadoopsummit2011/agenda.html#22 (sorry I
> don't think any video of the summit is available yet, not sure why)
>

The advantages in having a single crawl table are well known and this is why
we wanted to do that in 2.0. Again, if people want to get involved and
improve it they will be able to do so.

Thanks

Julien
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Julien Nioche <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Here is my vote :
>>
>>  +1 : Shelve 2.0 and move 1.4 to trunk
>>
>> Julien
>>
>>
>> On 18 September 2011 10:21, Julien Nioche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Following the discussions [1] on the dev-list about the future of Nutch
>>> 2.0, I would like to call for a vote on moving Nutch 2.0 from the trunk to a
>>> separate branch, promote 1.4 to trunk and consider 2.0 as unmaintained. The
>>> arguments for / against can be found in the thread I mentioned.
>>>
>>> The vote is open for the next 72 hours.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 : Shelve 2.0 and move 1.4 to trunk
>>> [] 0 : No opinion
>>> [] -1 : Bad idea.  Please give justification.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Julien
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00483.html<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nutch-dev/201109.mbox/%3CCA+[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *
>>> *Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>>>
>>> http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
>>> http://www.digitalpebble.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *
>> *Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering
>>
>> http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
>> http://www.digitalpebble.com
>>
>
>
--
*
*Open Source Solutions for Text Engineering

http://digitalpebble.blogspot.com/
http://www.digitalpebble.com

>  I'm glad to hear that there at least 2 people in the community that
do business in their field and proudly use a Nutch-based crawler
together with
 > Cassandra to store the data through Gora. That would not have been
possible with Nutch 1.x version.
what about to drop Gora, because it is progressing too slowly and make
Nutch 2.x only cassandra/hadoop db based ?

On 18/09/2011 02:21, Julien Nioche wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following the discussions [1] on the dev-list about the future of Nutch
> 2.0, I would like to call for a vote on moving Nutch 2.0 from the trunk
> to a separate branch, promote 1.4 to trunk and consider 2.0 as
> unmaintained. The arguments for / against can be found in the thread I
> mentioned.
>
> The vote is open for the next 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 : Shelve 2.0 and move 1.4 to trunk
> [] 0 : No opinion
> [] -1 : Bad idea.  Please give justification.

+1 - at this time it's clear that 2.0 didn't pan out as we expected, and
we should restart from the 1.x for a usable platform, and continue
redesign from that codebase.

--
Best regards,
Andrzej Bialecki     <><
  ___. ___ ___ ___ _ _   __________________________________
[__ || __|__/|__||\/|  Information Retrieval, Semantic Web
___|||__||  \|  ||  |  Embedded Unix, System Integration
http://www.sigram.com  Contact: info at sigram dot com