Nah, we rather focus on v3.6 and v4
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Troy Howard <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
