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 16:21:34 GMT
So, I created:

   - *Lucene.Net.Contrib*
   - *Lucene.Net.Sample*

Contacted the owner of *Lucene.Contrib* and *Lucene.net.* They would
hopefully grant me ownership of the 2 pkgs.
Got granted ownership to *Lucene *(which is the only package that is
actually downloaded and referenced to by other packages).

My plan would be to have these config:

   - 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)
   - 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 can grant ownership right to other people so someone else can work on it
if I get hit by a bus.
Prescott and Michael?


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"

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message