lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simone Chiaretta <simone.chiare...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
Date Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:05:20 GMT
Ok, so .net 4 for the moment
Simo

---
Simone Chiaretta
@simonech
Sent from a tablet

On 01/dic/2011, at 18:09, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com> wrote:

> We have 4.0 only.
> 
> There is a way to slightly modify to compile to 2.0 ( digy replied to a thread a day
or two ago regarding this). However, that code didn't go through a vote, and we believe there
is a memory leak in it as well
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Simone Chiaretta
> Sent: 12/1/2011 9:05 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
> 
> One last thing:
> the binaries are just of .NET 4.0? or do we have different bins of 2.0 and
> 4.0?
> 
> Simone
> 
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Simone Chiaretta <simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
>> wrote:
> 
>> Ok, I'll starting working on them (the nuspecs files in build folder).
>> When I get access to the Lucene.Net pkg id I'll upload them.
>> 
>> If you give me your nuget gallery username I'll add you to the package
>> owners.
>> 
>> I'll also contact all other projects that are referencing to Lucene to
>> tell them to update the pkg id to depend on, or to fix the dep to 2.9.2
>> (and not >2.9.2)
>> 
>> Simone
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>>> - Lucene.Net to contain the core
>>>> - Lucene.Contrib to contain the contrib and dep on Lucene.Net (there is
>>>> no point in shipping contrib alone)
>>>> - Lucene.Net.Sample to contain some samples (and a reference to
>>>> Lucene.Net)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> - Lucene: either empty with just a reference to Lucene.Net or just a
>>>> README and description that asks to update reference to another package
>>>> 
>>>> What do you think? Biggest problem is that Lucene is the de-facto
>>> offical
>>>> pkg id. Is it ok to switch to the Lucene.Net brand? or do you think we
>>>> should use keep the Lucene brand? IIUC we want to use our .NET brand
>>>> instead of the "java" one.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think we want to change to .Net, even if we have to blank out Lucene or
>>> put in a readme (I'd vote for blanking it out imo).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> I can grant ownership right to other people so someone else can work on
>>> it
>>>> if I get hit by a bus.
>>>> Prescott and Michael?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Those are probably good
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Simone
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
>>> simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Guys, if you want I can take ownership of the whole NuGet thing, from
>>>>> getting hold of the right package id, to publishing the nuget pkgs,
>>> and
>>>>> maybe adding a quickstart pkg
>>>>> Let me know if it's ok, or someone is already working on that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Simone
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Michael Herndon <
>>>>> mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> if you look inside of trunk/build/scripts/ there are three nuspecs
>>>>>> under their respective folder names.
>>>>>> all, contrib, and core.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> all is basically a dependency on contrib & core.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Prescott Nasser <
>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We also discussed a contrib package - but we never really had
a
>>> decision
>>>>>>> if we should be doing one package per contrib project or a single
>>>>>> contrib
>>>>>>> project.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:00:24 +0100
>>>>>>>> From: simone.chiaretta@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dears,
>>>>>>>> now, in the .NET ecosystem of opensource libraries it is
super
>>>>>> important
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> have the nuget package released in sync with the binary release.
>>>>>> Actually
>>>>>>>> many project are even just releasing the nuget package.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Currently there is a bit of confusion in the list of packages:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> - There is "Lucene" with project id "lucene"by Apache SF
relased
>>> on
>>>>>> jan
>>>>>>>> 11 frozen on version 2.9.2.2
>>> http://nuget.org/List/Packages/Lucene
>>>>>>>> - There is "Lucene.Net - (strong named 2.0/4.0) - 2.9.2.2"
with
>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>> id "lucene.net" released on Sept 11 still by Apache SF on
>>> version
>>>>>>>> 2.9.2.2 http://nuget.org/List/Packages/Lucene.Net
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I guess ppl think the good one is "lucene" b/c it has 3k
>>> download vs
>>>>>> 173
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the other (almost 300 x month vs 85 x month)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> But nothing yet on 2.9.4.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I suggest we reorganize the Nuget packages doing:
>>>>>>>> 1 - *delete *the "lucene" package (or add a new version with
>>> just a
>>>>>>> readme
>>>>>>>> file that clearly marks it is obsolete if not possible to
remove
>>> the
>>>>>>>> project)
>>>>>>>> 2 - *rename *the "lucene.net" package public title to
>>> "Lucene.net"
>>>>>>> (remove
>>>>>>>> the version number as they are not supposed to stay in the
name)
>>>>>>>> 3 - *create *a "lucene.net.strong" and move here the strongly
>>> signed
>>>>>>>> libraries
>>>>>>>> 4 - *upgrade both* to 2.9.4
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I think the script to create the nuget pkg is already in
place,
>>> if
>>>>>> not,
>>>>>>> let
>>>>>>>> me know and I'll look into making one.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> As last thing, I just want to stress on the importance of
having
>>> a
>>>>>> NuGet
>>>>>>>> pkg nowadays to be relevant in the .NET space
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Simone
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Simone Chiaretta
>>>>>>>> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
>>>>>>>> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
>>>>>>>> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
>>>>>>>> twitter: @simonech
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
from
>>> magic
>>>>>>>> "Life is short, play hard"
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Simone Chiaretta
>>>>> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
>>>>> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
>>>>> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
>>>>> twitter: @simonech
>>>>> 
>>>>> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
>>>>> "Life is short, play hard"
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Simone Chiaretta
>>>> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
>>>> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
>>>> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
>>>> twitter: @simonech
>>>> 
>>>> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
>>>> "Life is short, play hard"
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Simone Chiaretta
>> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
>> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
>> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
>> twitter: @simonech
>> 
>> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
>> "Life is short, play hard"
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Simone Chiaretta
> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> twitter: @simonech
> 
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> "Life is short, play hard"

Mime
View raw message