lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Herndon <mhern...@wickedsoftware.net>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
Date Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:49:56 GMT
there is actually registered for the lucene.net account for nuget.org.  I'd
suggest we use that one since the committers have access the credentials
stored for the account.

If others are ok with Simone taking lead on this, I can forward those
credentials to him.



On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
simone.chiaretta@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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