lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "George Aroush" <geo...@aroush.net>
Subject RE: Considering to contribute
Date Fri, 31 Jul 2009 02:17:08 GMT
Hi Rune,

Be very carefully with any enhancement change you make or propose, they
won't be welcome.  The goal is to keep deltas between previous ports as
small as possible so that subsequent ports can be managed.

Do a search in the archive for a background about how a port is done.  I
documented it.

As for how you can contribute, and this is for everyone who asked, please
grab the current code off the trunk and use it.  Check the NUnit results,
and see what if anything fails for you, and work on them.  Check "contrib"
and port over existing projects or new once.

Regards,

-- George

-----Original Message-----
From: Rune Vistnes [mailto:rune.vistnes@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 6:49 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Considering to contribute

Hey guys,

I haven't received any response yet, so I guess I can try to take some
initiative and see how that goes:

My first proposed change is regarding to namespace imports and fully
qualified names. I've notived that fully qualified names are being
used alot, and in my opinion, they clutter the code, and make the code
harder to read. Making better use of the 'using' directive is a task
that can be automated by the use of various tools, one of which is
ReSharper. I've already used this tool to update the code (revision
799135) to remove fully qualified names and use the 'using' directive
instead- It also removed quite a few unused namespace imports. This
change reduced the number of code warnings given by ReSharper
considerably, and this actually helped me spot a couple of bugs in the
code (I'm currently located at another computer and do not remember
the details behind the bugs, but I will bring them to attention at a
later time).

Is this patch something you would be interested in applying?

PS: I have noticed that trunk has started to show signs of the 2.4.0
conversion, which is good news. Nice work!

runenur

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:07 PM, runenur<runenur@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey,
> I've been playing with Lucene.Net for a while, and there are some issues
> that I have noticed. First of all, it is very clear from the API that it
is
> a more or less direct port of Lucene, and does not really feel .NET-ish.
> Also, I've noticed that it usually takes a while for a new Lucene release
to
> get ported to Lucene.Net. For that reason, I am considering to offer some
of
> my time to help keeping the code base up to date and to follow the .NET
> design guidelines in a better manner. In that regard, I have a few
questions
> I would love if someone could answer:
> * Does the code following a coding convention of some kind? For example,
> I've noticed that tabbed and spaced tabs are used intermixed, leaving me
to
> believe that might not be the case.
> * Do there exist a prioritized list of what should or could be done to the
> code base?
> * How far along is the 2.4.x port?
> With best regards,
> runenur


Mime
View raw message