lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Irwin <>
Subject Re: Lucene 4.0
Date Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:14:52 GMT
Sorry for the follow-up email, but I also don't mind working on bringing
the 3.x side up to 3.6.2 compatibility. Is the SOP to create a 3.6 branch
and work from there?

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Paul Irwin <> wrote:

> This is just an "outsider" suggestion as I haven't contributed anything
> yet, although I will definitely help with the 4.x work as I have a vested
> interest in seeing that get completed. I think there should be one person
> (or perhaps two) guiding what the structure and workflow will look like to
> avoid chaos. If the 4.x work is going to be starting from scratch as a
> fresh port, that person should set up the project, get everything going in
> source control, create the folder structure, maybe stub out some classes,
> etc. Then divide and conquer with anyone interested in contributing,
> perhaps by namespace.
> I like the idea of throwing the java code in there so it's easy to
> reference.
> Again, I can work on Lucene.Net.Documents, Lucene.Net.Analysis, or
> Lucene.Net.Store -- or any others, those are just the ones I'm most
> familiar with the inner workings. Tell me what to do and I'll get started
> on my fork.
> Paul Irwin
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Prescott Nasser <>wrote:
>> Hey guys -
>> I know I've been MIA a little while. We have a board report due soon - I
>> think it prudent that we advise them that we seem to have stalled somewhat.
>> We've got a few low hanging items out of of jira and have been responsive
>> on the mailing list to community questions, but I don't think we've done
>> anything to move forward with 4.0.
>> To that end - I'd like to *try* and start us back up moving forward. What
>> is the best way to accomplish this? If we took the java lucene 4.0 code and
>> committed that java to our branch and then just let people pull that down
>> and being changing / modifying is that one way to maybe make some forward
>> progress?
>> ~P

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