lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
Date Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:09:40 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message