Ok, so .net 4 for the moment Simo --- Simone Chiaretta @simonech Sent from a tablet
On 01/dic/2011, at 18:09, Prescott Nasser <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > 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 <[email protected] >> 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 <[email protected]>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 < >>> [email protected] >>>>> 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 < >>>>> [email protected]> 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 < >>> [email protected] >>>>>>> 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: [email protected] >>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>> 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"
