lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Granroth, Neal V." <neal.granr...@thermofisher.com>
Subject RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Date Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:26:05 GMT

Say what?  There's no personalities involved here.
It's simple, anything that comes between me and the source is unnecessary and just gets in
the way of deploying and using Lucene.NET

- Neal


-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:07 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts

Michael - Could be wrong, but I think Nick might have gotten you
confused with Neal.

Regardless, I completely agree with everything you just said.

And, Yay for NuGet! Package management is the bomb.

-T


On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Michael Herndon
<mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
> Nick,
>
> The last e-mail was out of line and out of context. If anything, emails like
> that can push people into emotional or motivational apathy towards working
> on a project.
>
> 1) Lucene.Net will be getting nuget packages.   People can hate on it,
> grumble, or not use it, but its a viable distribution vehicle. Its going in.
>  This thread was to gather feedback on how people that would use it, see
> themselves using it.
>
> 2) Others might want alternatives to nuget that have not been provided yet.
>  We should be open to providing distribution alternatives if enough people
> warrant it.  Its not apathetic or impassive to think to that there might be
> more than one way to distribute releases.
>
> 3) Attack problems. Not people. If you believe a person is the problem, take
> the issue up with them offline. Those kinds of things are better face to
> face or through a phone call, or an exceptionally clear e-mail. Its way too
> easy for people to read into things too much or take things out of context
> in an e-mail.
>
> Attacking people also distracts people from focusing on the actual issue and
> prevents any actually logic or reason or sound argument from being heard.
>  Its a good way to alienate people that you should actually be trying to
> persuade.
>
> 4) If I was actually apathetic and severely short sighted, I would not be
> spending my own vacation time this weekend automating nuget packages with
> the build scripts for Lucene.Net or experimenting Portable Library Tools for
> Lucene.Net 4.x to see if we can get it working on mobile.  Nor would I  have
> spent my last 4 day weekend setting up jenkins and local builds of
> Lucene.Net.  Or put in the hours today to make sure the build scripts
> are granular enough to implement the smaller packages.
>
> 5) If you feel so passionately about all this, why not work towards being a
> contributor or committer and lead by example ?
>
>
> - Michael
>
>
>
> Since I'm the one implementing Nuget into the build process and I have not
> played with the nuget server or creating a package, it just seem wise to
> gather feedback on how people saw themselves using the contrib packages.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] <
> casperOne@caspershouse.com> wrote:
>
>> With all due respect, it's myopic opinions like yours and Michael's (his
>> leans more towards apathy) which will harm the ability to get the project
>> into the hands of people.
>>
>> I think (hope?) it can be agreed upon that the more that people are aware
>> of
>> Lucene.NET, the better it is for the project in general, and most
>> importantly, the more potential that you have that someone will *contribute
>> back* to it (and given what Lucene.NET has gone through in the past year,
>> it
>> desperately needs that participation).
>>
>> The fact of the matter is that Nuget puts packages in the hands of .NET
>> developers, that leads to exposure and regardless of personal opinions on
>> whether or not they *like* Nuget, it can't be denied that it's an
>> *extremely* popular way to get libraries into people's projects.
>>
>> If you want to quibble over the actual numbers (and the definition of
>> "extremely popular") then that's fine, but here are the numbers you want:
>>
>> http://stats.nuget.org/
>>
>> If you want to just tell that audience to take a leap, that's fine, but I
>> think it would be foolish to do so otherwise.
>>
>> Additionally, given that Lucene.NET is already on Nuget, isn't there *any*
>> concern that there isn't an official distro?  Aren't you concerned about
>> the
>> integrity of the brand that so many of you fought to keep alive over the
>> past year?  There's no guarantee that what's on Nuget will be the official
>> releases/builds that come out of this project, and I'm a little surprised
>> there isn't more concern over that aspect either.
>>
>> Just my $0.02
>>
>> - Nick
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:06 PM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>>
>> I am not against it, but personally think it as a toy.
>> I am from the generation where people used vi to write codes.
>>
>> DIGY
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Aaron Powell [mailto:me@aaron-powell.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:56 AM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>>
>> Any particular reason you guys are not interested in NuGet?
>>
>> Aaron Powell
>> MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
>>
>> http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell |
>> Github | BitBucket
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011 7:42 AM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>>
>> Sorry, but I feel the same as Neal.
>>
>> DIGY
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:08 PM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>>
>> No interest in Nuget whatsoever.
>>
>> - Neal
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mherndon@wickedsoftware.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:57 PM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>>
>> We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would
>> like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list**
>>
>> Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not
>> create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in
>> source.  Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started
>> by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net.
>>
>> Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib.  My question to
>> the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for
>> each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
>>
>> The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also
>> create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the
>> other
>> ones.   Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full.
>>
>> Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages.
>>
>> My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with
>> choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then
>> installing assemblies that you might never use.
>>
>>
>> Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band
>> project nuget feed for  nightly builds, branches with new or experimental
>> features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
>>
>>
>> ** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org.
>>  This
>> was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has
>> a chance to voice their use cases or concerns.
>> -----
>>
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message