Hi Rune, Be very carefully with any enhancement change you make or propose, they won't be welcome. The goal is to keep deltas between previous ports as small as possible so that subsequent ports can be managed.
Do a search in the archive for a background about how a port is done. I documented it. As for how you can contribute, and this is for everyone who asked, please grab the current code off the trunk and use it. Check the NUnit results, and see what if anything fails for you, and work on them. Check "contrib" and port over existing projects or new once. Regards, -- George -----Original Message----- From: Rune Vistnes [mailto:rune.vist...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 6:49 PM To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Considering to contribute Hey guys, I haven't received any response yet, so I guess I can try to take some initiative and see how that goes: My first proposed change is regarding to namespace imports and fully qualified names. I've notived that fully qualified names are being used alot, and in my opinion, they clutter the code, and make the code harder to read. Making better use of the 'using' directive is a task that can be automated by the use of various tools, one of which is ReSharper. I've already used this tool to update the code (revision 799135) to remove fully qualified names and use the 'using' directive instead- It also removed quite a few unused namespace imports. This change reduced the number of code warnings given by ReSharper considerably, and this actually helped me spot a couple of bugs in the code (I'm currently located at another computer and do not remember the details behind the bugs, but I will bring them to attention at a later time). Is this patch something you would be interested in applying? PS: I have noticed that trunk has started to show signs of the 2.4.0 conversion, which is good news. Nice work! runenur On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:07 PM, runenur<rune...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey, > I've been playing with Lucene.Net for a while, and there are some issues > that I have noticed. First of all, it is very clear from the API that it is > a more or less direct port of Lucene, and does not really feel .NET-ish. > Also, I've noticed that it usually takes a while for a new Lucene release to > get ported to Lucene.Net. For that reason, I am considering to offer some of > my time to help keeping the code base up to date and to follow the .NET > design guidelines in a better manner. In that regard, I have a few questions > I would love if someone could answer: > * Does the code following a coding convention of some kind? For example, > I've noticed that tabbed and spaced tabs are used intermixed, leaving me to > believe that might not be the case. > * Do there exist a prioritized list of what should or could be done to the > code base? > * How far along is the 2.4.x port? > With best regards, > runenur
