Hey George, As far as I can see, the enhancements I have in mind shouldn't make it harder to manage subsequent ports. I fact, I believe they would actually make it easier. For example, not using fully qualified names will remove redundancies in the code and result in less code to manage. The initial 2.4.0 port already contains these kind of changes, where "System.Object" has been changed to "object". My patch would make take this a step further and make it consistens across the code base. Consistency should make the code base more maintainable, not less.
Another suggestion is to make use of a continous integration (CI) server. I've had great success with the introduction of one such tool at work, namely TeamCity. CodeBetter have set up a public instance for open source projects located at http://teamcity.codebetter.com/, and well known projects such as NHibernate, Ninject, and Structure Map have already been added. Using such a CI server, a build can be made every time code has been commit, the test suite can be run, and emails can be sent to the mailing list when build errors or errors in a test run occur. runenur On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:17 AM, George Aroush<geo...@aroush.net> wrote: > 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 > >
