> - Lucene.Net to contain the core > - Lucene.Contrib to contain the contrib and dep on Lucene.Net (there is > no point in shipping contrib alone) > - Lucene.Net.Sample to contain some samples (and a reference to > Lucene.Net)
+1 > - Lucene: either empty with just a reference to Lucene.Net or just a > README and description that asks to update reference to another package > > What do you think? Biggest problem is that Lucene is the de-facto offical > pkg id. Is it ok to switch to the Lucene.Net brand? or do you think we > should use keep the Lucene brand? IIUC we want to use our .NET brand > instead of the "java" one. > I think we want to change to .Net, even if we have to blank out Lucene or put in a readme (I'd vote for blanking it out imo). > I can grant ownership right to other people so someone else can work on it > if I get hit by a bus. > Prescott and Michael? > Those are probably good > > Simone > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Simone Chiaretta <simone.chiare...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Guys, if you want I can take ownership of the whole NuGet thing, from > > getting hold of the right package id, to publishing the nuget pkgs, and > > maybe adding a quickstart pkg > > Let me know if it's ok, or someone is already working on that. > > > > Simone > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Michael Herndon < > > mhern...@wickedsoftware.net> wrote: > > > >> if you look inside of trunk/build/scripts/ there are three nuspecs > >> under their respective folder names. > >> all, contrib, and core. > >> > >> all is basically a dependency on contrib & core. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com > >> >wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > We also discussed a contrib package - but we never really had a decision > >> > if we should be doing one package per contrib project or a single > >> contrib > >> > project. > >> > > >> > ---------------------------------------- > >> > > Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:00:24 +0100 > >> > > From: simone.chiare...@gmail.com > >> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > >> > > Subject: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget > >> > > > >> > > Dears, > >> > > now, in the .NET ecosystem of opensource libraries it is super > >> important > >> > to > >> > > have the nuget package released in sync with the binary release. > >> Actually > >> > > many project are even just releasing the nuget package. > >> > > > >> > > Currently there is a bit of confusion in the list of packages: > >> > > > >> > > - There is "Lucene" with project id "lucene"by Apache SF relased on > >> jan > >> > > 11 frozen on version 2.9.2.2 http://nuget.org/List/Packages/Lucene > >> > > - There is "Lucene.Net - (strong named 2.0/4.0) - 2.9.2.2" with > >> project > >> > > id "lucene.net" released on Sept 11 still by Apache SF on version > >> > > 2.9.2.2 http://nuget.org/List/Packages/Lucene.Net > >> > > > >> > > I guess ppl think the good one is "lucene" b/c it has 3k download vs > >> 173 > >> > of > >> > > the other (almost 300 x month vs 85 x month) > >> > > > >> > > But nothing yet on 2.9.4. > >> > > > >> > > I suggest we reorganize the Nuget packages doing: > >> > > 1 - *delete *the "lucene" package (or add a new version with just a > >> > readme > >> > > file that clearly marks it is obsolete if not possible to remove the > >> > > project) > >> > > 2 - *rename *the "lucene.net" package public title to "Lucene.net" > >> > (remove > >> > > the version number as they are not supposed to stay in the name) > >> > > 3 - *create *a "lucene.net.strong" and move here the strongly signed > >> > > libraries > >> > > 4 - *upgrade both* to 2.9.4 > >> > > > >> > > I think the script to create the nuget pkg is already in place, if > >> not, > >> > let > >> > > me know and I'll look into making one. > >> > > > >> > > As last thing, I just want to stress on the importance of having a > >> NuGet > >> > > pkg nowadays to be relevant in the .NET space > >> > > > >> > > Simone > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Simone Chiaretta > >> > > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider > >> > > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz > >> > > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber > >> > > twitter: @simonech > >> > > > >> > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic > >> > > "Life is short, play hard" > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Simone Chiaretta > > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider > > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz > > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber > > twitter: @simonech > > > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic > > "Life is short, play hard" > > > > > > -- > Simone Chiaretta > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber > twitter: @simonech > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic > "Life is short, play hard"
