Well, unfortunately, this guy never got back to me even though I followed up a couple of times.
Sorry to get everyone all excited :) Good news is, we got a bunch of focus on what we *could* develop if we had more people involved, so maybe if we just find more people we can get those project rolling. Might be a good idea to create a wiki of "Things We'd Like To Pursue" describing all these various projects, so potentially interested developers could pick from that list and offer to help. -T On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Christopher Currens < [email protected]> wrote: > I think Azure directory is under the MS-LPL, which isn't Apache > compatible. LinqtoLucene is MS-PL and should be compatible, though. > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Prescott Nasser <[email protected]> > wrote: > > fyi, looks like Ms-pl is compatible with asl ( > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html). > > Two projects I keep track off, the azure library, and linq to lucene > http://linqtolucene.codeplex.com/ > >> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 23:41:42 +0200 > >> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project > >> From: [email protected] > >> To: [email protected] > >> > >> I'll work on that > >> > >> And again - I would rather see a decent R# plugin to aid with Java code > >> porting than an automated tool to do that > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Christopher Currens < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > The entire asp.net codebase is released under the apache license, so > I > >> > wouldn't be surprised if MS would donate that under apache as well if > we > >> > asked. > >> > On Oct 1, 2012 2:34 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > There is already an Azure directory for Lucene.Net ( > >> > > > http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsazure/Azure-Library-for-83562538) > >> > > It would be fantastic to get that into contrib, but being by a > microsoft > >> > > guy, I think they stick to MS-LPL. Maybe we could reach out to them > for > >> > > that? > >> > > The team is large, I think Luke.Net is probably too small for them > imo, > >> > > although it would be nice. ElasticSearch or work on sharpen porting > would > >> > > get my votes > >> > > > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 22:35:22 +0200 > >> > > > Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project > >> > > > From: [email protected] > >> > > > To: [email protected] > >> > > > > >> > > > My thoughts exactly - either a search server on top of Lucene.NET > >> > > > (I'd recommend looking at ElasticSearch as a role-model, not > SOLR) , a > >> > > > Java porting aid (a handy R# plugin would worth tons more in > terms of > >> > > > productivity than a tool that just translates code, as a dev > should do > >> > a > >> > > > pass on the code anyway) , Luke.NET (WPF or Web-ish), or thinking > of an > >> > > > idea to a new missing contrib (Azure directory?) > >> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Troy Howard <[email protected] > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > All, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > You may recall a project I started called Lucere before getting > >> > > directly > >> > > > > involved with Lucene.Net. At that time I was planning to fork > >> > > Lucene.Net, > >> > > > > but since getting involved here that project has died off. I > still > >> > get > >> > > > > occasional inquiries about the project via Codeproject, and I > >> > generally > >> > > > > point them to the Lucene.Net mailing lists. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I just got an interesting email via that project, with an > significant > >> > > offer > >> > > > > for development help. See below: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Dear Lucere team, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I am writing on behalf 12 students of AGH University of Science > and > >> > > > > Technology in Cracow, Poland. In starting fall semester we have > >> > > project in > >> > > > > our objective technologies course. This course is concentrated > mainly > >> > > on > >> > > > > analysis and design of models (UMLs, objective principles and > so on), > >> > > but > >> > > > > also on producing very high quality of code and using most > common > >> > > approach > >> > > > > to development nowadays (design patterns, ORMs, unit testing, > IoC and > >> > > so > >> > > > > on). We are looking for open source project to contribute. We > think > >> > > that we > >> > > > > could desing and develop one or two specific parts of open > project > >> > like > >> > > > > this as a part of our university project. Our team is full of > very > >> > > > > ambitious and very skilled people. Twelve people should be > enough to > >> > > build > >> > > > > something great. Moreover we have support of our PhDs leading > this > >> > > course. > >> > > > > They will validate all our ideas and will help us to design > >> > everything > >> > > in > >> > > > > best way. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > As I said before we want to create rather entire module than > fixing > >> > > some > >> > > > > bugs. Due to our course objectives we are interested only in > highly > >> > > > > objective modules. It would be great if you allow us free rein > in > >> > > designing > >> > > > > such module. Maybe you have in your roadmap some features we can > >> > build > >> > > in > >> > > > > that way. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Your project seems very interesting for us and we would be > delighted > >> > to > >> > > > > contribute. We are waiting eagerly for your response. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Best regards, > >> > > > > Bartlomiej Szczepanik > >> > > > > Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunication > >> > > > > AGH Univerity of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > --- > >> > > > > > >> > > > > If this is interesting to us, I will coordinate with Bartlomeij > and > >> > > see if > >> > > > > we can bring these developers into Lucene.Net. If we do > suddenly have > >> > > 12 > >> > > > > new developers that want to work on the project... What should > they > >> > > do, and > >> > > > > how will we coordinate their work? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > His stated goals are to create not to bug fix... and porting > doesn't > >> > > really > >> > > > > fall under the fold of "create and design". > >> > > > > > >> > > > > We have always tossed around the idea of creating a layer on > top of > >> > the > >> > > > > existing API that would be more .NET idiomatic, or > incorporating some > >> > > new > >> > > > > .NET specific features into the library *in addition* to the > baseline > >> > > > > functionality that we port directly. Perhaps this could be the > group > >> > > to do > >> > > > > that work? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > We've also talked about trying to get some improvement with an > >> > > automated > >> > > > > porting process, and how that would require significant coding > work > >> > to > >> > > > > bring a project like Sharpen up to our needs. Perhaps they could > >> > focus > >> > > on > >> > > > > that? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search > application > >> > > that > >> > > > > was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is > unique to > >> > > > > Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back > the .NET > >> > > > > remoteing model that was removed)? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Perhaps they could design a new tool like Luke, that is more > >> > > maintainable > >> > > > > (have you seen that code? eek)... > >> > > > > > >> > > > > There are a lot of options here. Thoughts? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > Troy > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >
