Its a continuation of an older experimental effort attempting to offering a portable class library version of Lucene.Net.
Branches Lucene.Net_4e and Lucene.Net.WP7 were put on hold as portable projects that targeted WP7 would have required significant amounts of work, including recreating a significant part of System.Threading. The PCL branch was meant to be to the continuation of that effort that was brought up again in the thread labeled, Windows RT / WP8 Version, almost a year ago. I started using the PCL branch with experimental items to avoid cluttering branch_4x. * Lucene 5.0 code * Vnext projects that build PCL, K10, .NET 4.5.1 binaries. * newer build scripts that will be easier to manage. * stubbing out a nightly build strategy. * experimenting writing docs with markdown. * cleaning up warnings, code analytics, and adding code documentation and documenting code intent. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com> wrote: > Michael, what is this PCL branch? I don't recall you ever brought it up > here? > > -- > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> > Freelance Developer & Consultant > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/> > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:43 AM, michael herndon < > mhern...@michaelherndon.com> wrote: > > > Hi David, > > > > Thank you to you and others for your efforts on this! > > > > If Lucene.Net had a formal contribution process, its been lost over time. > > I've recently written one up that is specific to only to the PCL / VNext > > Branch. https://github.com/apache/lucene.net/tree/pcl. I'll just > basically > > follow in the footsteps of that. > > > > The Apache Foundation wants to ensure that committers, people who has > > read/write access to the project, verifies all the patches are applied > > under the apache 2.0 license and is granted to the foundation. So in > order > > to meet that expectation, please do the following. > > > > I've created a jira ticket: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-545. > > > > - Create one more commit from your git repo. > > - Change the acknowledgement.txt file to list all the people who > > worked on this and that the code changes is submitted under the > > apache 2.0 > > license. > > - Then commit the change with LUCENENET-545 in the message. > > - Send a pull request to the lucene.net repo on github. > > - Have the all contributors send a short reply to this e-mail to > verify > > they all agree to submit the code changes under the apache 2.0 license > > as > > stated in the commit. > > > > > > When that is done, I'll update the ticket to reference the pull request > and > > e-mails. Then a merge can be started to pull in order to pull in the new > > changes. > > > > One of the committers will then merge code into the repo. I wouldn't be > > surprise if there is chatter on this thread or another on how committers > > want specifics of the merge to be handled, however, getting the > > aknowledgements should get us most of the way there. > > > > In mean time, if you or others all are going to continue to work on this > as > > time permits, consider becoming a project committer. Most apache projects > > want a ticket per patch/pull-request submitted and that may become > > cumbersome over time. > > > > -Michael > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:01 PM, David Wan <t-de...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > We have been working on a port of Lucene 4.8.0 for the past few months > > and > > > was wondering what the process was for contributing back into the main > > > Lucene.net project. It is currently a rough work in progress and we > have > > > about 1518 unit tests passing out of 1971. Our progress has slowed down > > in > > > the past few weeks and we really hope to get some help from the > community > > > to help us fix all the issues and push out this release. > > > > > > You can check out our latest source at: > > > https://github.com/russelltrupiano/lucene.net-1 > > > > > > Any help would be greatly appreciated! > > > > > > Thanks, > > > David > > > > > >
