RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Say what? There's no personalities involved here. It's simple, anything that comes between me and the source is unnecessary and just gets in the way of deploying and using Lucene.NET - Neal -Original Message- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:07 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts Michael - Could be wrong, but I think Nick might have gotten you confused with Neal. Regardless, I completely agree with everything you just said. And, Yay for NuGet! Package management is the bomb. -T On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Michael Herndon mhern...@wickedsoftware.net wrote: Nick, The last e-mail was out of line and out of context. If anything, emails like that can push people into emotional or motivational apathy towards working on a project. 1) Lucene.Net will be getting nuget packages. People can hate on it, grumble, or not use it, but its a viable distribution vehicle. Its going in. This thread was to gather feedback on how people that would use it, see themselves using it. 2) Others might want alternatives to nuget that have not been provided yet. We should be open to providing distribution alternatives if enough people warrant it. Its not apathetic or impassive to think to that there might be more than one way to distribute releases. 3) Attack problems. Not people. If you believe a person is the problem, take the issue up with them offline. Those kinds of things are better face to face or through a phone call, or an exceptionally clear e-mail. Its way too easy for people to read into things too much or take things out of context in an e-mail. Attacking people also distracts people from focusing on the actual issue and prevents any actually logic or reason or sound argument from being heard. Its a good way to alienate people that you should actually be trying to persuade. 4) If I was actually apathetic and severely short sighted, I would not be spending my own vacation time this weekend automating nuget packages with the build scripts for Lucene.Net or experimenting Portable Library Tools for Lucene.Net 4.x to see if we can get it working on mobile. Nor would I have spent my last 4 day weekend setting up jenkins and local builds of Lucene.Net. Or put in the hours today to make sure the build scripts are granular enough to implement the smaller packages. 5) If you feel so passionately about all this, why not work towards being a contributor or committer and lead by example ? - Michael Since I'm the one implementing Nuget into the build process and I have not played with the nuget server or creating a package, it just seem wise to gather feedback on how people saw themselves using the contrib packages. On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] casper...@caspershouse.com wrote: With all due respect, it's myopic opinions like yours and Michael's (his leans more towards apathy) which will harm the ability to get the project into the hands of people. I think (hope?) it can be agreed upon that the more that people are aware of Lucene.NET, the better it is for the project in general, and most importantly, the more potential that you have that someone will *contribute back* to it (and given what Lucene.NET has gone through in the past year, it desperately needs that participation). The fact of the matter is that Nuget puts packages in the hands of .NET developers, that leads to exposure and regardless of personal opinions on whether or not they *like* Nuget, it can't be denied that it's an *extremely* popular way to get libraries into people's projects. If you want to quibble over the actual numbers (and the definition of extremely popular) then that's fine, but here are the numbers you want: http://stats.nuget.org/ If you want to just tell that audience to take a leap, that's fine, but I think it would be foolish to do so otherwise. Additionally, given that Lucene.NET is already on Nuget, isn't there *any* concern that there isn't an official distro? Aren't you concerned about the integrity of the brand that so many of you fought to keep alive over the past year? There's no guarantee that what's on Nuget will be the official releases/builds that come out of this project, and I'm a little surprised there isn't more concern over that aspect either. Just my $0.02 - Nick -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:06 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts I am not against it, but personally think it as a toy. I am from the generation where people used vi to write codes. DIGY -Original Message- From: Aaron Powell [mailto:m...@aaron-powell.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:56 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
, but it shouldn't be veiled in that manner. Nor should it be said that I'm not happy to see the changes in the project in the last year or that I don't value the project; both could be further from the truth, I just don't see (yet) what it takes to bring it to the next level, and ultimately, to the level of the Java project (where we would have things like Solr, elasticsearch, etc). - Nick - Michael Since I'm the one implementing Nuget into the build process and I have not played with the nuget server or creating a package, it just seem wise to gather feedback on how people saw themselves using the contrib packages. I agree, and I agree with Dan Swain's opinion on the matter; have contrib as a separate package (with a dependency on core, obviously) and separate certain contrib packages out when they are significant enough to stand on their own. Additionally, I'd add that you have a Lucene.NET all package, which would wrap all of the packages/references up (it's pretty common practice, at least among a number of the packages that MS puts out, to have one package that has everything, see the Rx framework for an example). On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] casper...@caspershouse.com wrote: With all due respect, it's myopic opinions like yours and Michael's (his leans more towards apathy) which will harm the ability to get the project into the hands of people. I think (hope?) it can be agreed upon that the more that people are aware of Lucene.NET, the better it is for the project in general, and most importantly, the more potential that you have that someone will *contribute back* to it (and given what Lucene.NET has gone through in the past year, it desperately needs that participation). The fact of the matter is that Nuget puts packages in the hands of .NET developers, that leads to exposure and regardless of personal opinions on whether or not they *like* Nuget, it can't be denied that it's an *extremely* popular way to get libraries into people's projects. If you want to quibble over the actual numbers (and the definition of extremely popular) then that's fine, but here are the numbers you want: http://stats.nuget.org/ If you want to just tell that audience to take a leap, that's fine, but I think it would be foolish to do so otherwise. Additionally, given that Lucene.NET is already on Nuget, isn't there *any* concern that there isn't an official distro? Aren't you concerned about the integrity of the brand that so many of you fought to keep alive over the past year? There's no guarantee that what's on Nuget will be the official releases/builds that come out of this project, and I'm a little surprised there isn't more concern over that aspect either. Just my $0.02 - Nick -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:06 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts I am not against it, but personally think it as a toy. I am from the generation where people used vi to write codes. DIGY -Original Message- From: Aaron Powell [mailto:m...@aaron-powell.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:56 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts Any particular reason you guys are not interested in NuGet? Aaron Powell MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011 7:42 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts Sorry, but I feel the same as Neal. DIGY -Original Message- From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granr...@thermofisher.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:08 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts No interest in Nuget whatsoever. - Neal -Original Message- From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mhern...@wickedsoftware.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:57 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org Subject: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list** Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net. Right now there are two packages: Lucene Lucene.Contrib. My question to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for each contrib
Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Use a Lucene.Net core package for the core, and separate packages for each contrib. That makes the most sense, and that is how most projects work. This is also how Java Lucene does. Don't create a nightly nuget package - nuget should only be used for distribution packages On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Michael Herndon mhern...@wickedsoftware.net wrote: We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list** Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net. Right now there are two packages: Lucene Lucene.Contrib. My question to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple. The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the other ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full. Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages. My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then installing assemblies that you might never use. Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release? ** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org. This was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has a chance to voice their use cases or concerns.
Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
@Digy, that could be done post build with ILMerge or build an additional uber assembly that stores other assemblies as a resource. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/microsoft_press/archive/2010/02/03/jeffrey-richter-excerpt-2-from-clr-via-c-third-edition.aspx We can add the above to the build process if that would interest people. To some nuget is just another disruption and to others its a godsend. Some might say only hipsters would use nuget, others might say the cools kids with iphones use nuget. (or android or wp7). At the end of the day nuget or combining assemblies are just channels/ways we can make it easier for various developers to consume get their hands on Lucene.Net. If anyone else has ideas along those lines and it can be automated, post it in this thread. On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Digy digyd...@gmail.com wrote: Even all contribs could be a single project/assembly. That way, users could reference all contribs with a single assembly. I see no harm in putting a few KB pressure on RAM :) DIGY -Original Message- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:32 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts While it may be a bit redundant, why couldn't there be an individual package for each piece of contrib and a Lucene.Net Contrib (All) package that drags them all down. That way users can grab just the bit they need, or if they just want to get the whole thing, grab the All package. Thanks, Troy On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Aaron Powell m...@aaron-powell.com wrote: I'm going to vote +1 for granular. With the RC you could look at myget and have a Lucene.Net repository on there so people can go for unstable on myget, stables on nuget. Also, I came across this article which explains how to setup a build server to automatically push to nuget/ myget which could be useful to the maintainers: http://brendanforster.com/doing-the-build-server-dance-with-nuget.html Aaron Powell MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket -Original Message- From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 2:05 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts Right now there are two packages: Lucene Lucene.Contrib. My question to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple. +1 Granular, we just need to be good about descriptions. Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release? Having a package for the latest RC would probably be a good idea - Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1808 / Virus Database: 2085/4508 - Release Date: 09/20/11
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/microsoft_press/archive/2010/02/03/jeffrey-richter-e xcerpt-2-from-clr-via-c-third-edition.aspx Yes, this is the trick some obfuscators use.(they use also some scrambling fxns to hide the code in resource) DIGY -Original Message- From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mhern...@wickedsoftware.net] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:36 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts @Digy, that could be done post build with ILMerge or build an additional uber assembly that stores other assemblies as a resource. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/microsoft_press/archive/2010/02/03/jeffrey-richter-e xcerpt-2-from-clr-via-c-third-edition.aspx We can add the above to the build process if that would interest people. To some nuget is just another disruption and to others its a godsend. Some might say only hipsters would use nuget, others might say the cools kids with iphones use nuget. (or android or wp7). At the end of the day nuget or combining assemblies are just channels/ways we can make it easier for various developers to consume get their hands on Lucene.Net. If anyone else has ideas along those lines and it can be automated, post it in this thread. On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Digy digyd...@gmail.com wrote: Even all contribs could be a single project/assembly. That way, users could reference all contribs with a single assembly. I see no harm in putting a few KB pressure on RAM :) DIGY -Original Message- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:32 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts While it may be a bit redundant, why couldn't there be an individual package for each piece of contrib and a Lucene.Net Contrib (All) package that drags them all down. That way users can grab just the bit they need, or if they just want to get the whole thing, grab the All package. Thanks, Troy On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Aaron Powell m...@aaron-powell.com wrote: I'm going to vote +1 for granular. With the RC you could look at myget and have a Lucene.Net repository on there so people can go for unstable on myget, stables on nuget. Also, I came across this article which explains how to setup a build server to automatically push to nuget/ myget which could be useful to the maintainers: http://brendanforster.com/doing-the-build-server-dance-with-nuget.html Aaron Powell MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket -Original Message- From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 2:05 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts Right now there are two packages: Lucene Lucene.Contrib. My question to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple. +1 Granular, we just need to be good about descriptions. Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release? Having a package for the latest RC would probably be a good idea - Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1808 / Virus Database: 2085/4508 - Release Date: 09/20/11 - Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Any particular reason you guys are not interested in NuGet? Aaron Powell MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011 7:42 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts Sorry, but I feel the same as Neal. DIGY -Original Message- From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granr...@thermofisher.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:08 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts No interest in Nuget whatsoever. - Neal -Original Message- From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mhern...@wickedsoftware.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:57 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org Subject: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list** Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net. Right now there are two packages: Lucene Lucene.Contrib. My question to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple. The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the other ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full. Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages. My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then installing assemblies that you might never use. Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release? ** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org. This was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has a chance to voice their use cases or concerns. - Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
I am not against it, but personally think it as a toy. I am from the generation where people used vi to write codes. DIGY -Original Message- From: Aaron Powell [mailto:m...@aaron-powell.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:56 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts Any particular reason you guys are not interested in NuGet? Aaron Powell MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011 7:42 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts Sorry, but I feel the same as Neal. DIGY -Original Message- From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granr...@thermofisher.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:08 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts No interest in Nuget whatsoever. - Neal -Original Message- From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mhern...@wickedsoftware.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:57 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org Subject: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list** Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net. Right now there are two packages: Lucene Lucene.Contrib. My question to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple. The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the other ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full. Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages. My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then installing assemblies that you might never use. Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release? ** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org. This was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has a chance to voice their use cases or concerns. - Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11 - Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Not that old :) DIGY -Original Message- From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 2:14 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts Punch cards or bust! Sent from my Windows Phone -Original Message- From: Digy Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 4:06 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts I am not against it, but personally think it as a toy. I am from the generation where people used vi to write codes. DIGY -Original Message- From: Aaron Powell [mailto:m...@aaron-powell.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:56 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts Any particular reason you guys are not interested in NuGet? Aaron Powell MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) |�FunnelWeb Team Member http://apowell.me�|�http://twitter.com/slace�| Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011 7:42 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts Sorry, but I feel the same as Neal. DIGY -Original Message- From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granr...@thermofisher.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:08 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts No interest in Nuget whatsoever. - Neal -Original Message- From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mhern...@wickedsoftware.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:57 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org Subject: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list** Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net. Right now there are two packages: Lucene Lucene.Contrib. My question to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple. The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the other ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full. Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages. My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then installing assemblies that you might never use. Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release? ** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org. This was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has a chance to voice their use cases or concerns. - Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11 - Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11 - Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Nick, The last e-mail was out of line and out of context. If anything, emails like that can push people into emotional or motivational apathy towards working on a project. 1) Lucene.Net will be getting nuget packages. People can hate on it, grumble, or not use it, but its a viable distribution vehicle. Its going in. This thread was to gather feedback on how people that would use it, see themselves using it. 2) Others might want alternatives to nuget that have not been provided yet. We should be open to providing distribution alternatives if enough people warrant it. Its not apathetic or impassive to think to that there might be more than one way to distribute releases. 3) Attack problems. Not people. If you believe a person is the problem, take the issue up with them offline. Those kinds of things are better face to face or through a phone call, or an exceptionally clear e-mail. Its way too easy for people to read into things too much or take things out of context in an e-mail. Attacking people also distracts people from focusing on the actual issue and prevents any actually logic or reason or sound argument from being heard. Its a good way to alienate people that you should actually be trying to persuade. 4) If I was actually apathetic and severely short sighted, I would not be spending my own vacation time this weekend automating nuget packages with the build scripts for Lucene.Net or experimenting Portable Library Tools for Lucene.Net 4.x to see if we can get it working on mobile. Nor would I have spent my last 4 day weekend setting up jenkins and local builds of Lucene.Net. Or put in the hours today to make sure the build scripts are granular enough to implement the smaller packages. 5) If you feel so passionately about all this, why not work towards being a contributor or committer and lead by example ? - Michael Since I'm the one implementing Nuget into the build process and I have not played with the nuget server or creating a package, it just seem wise to gather feedback on how people saw themselves using the contrib packages. On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] casper...@caspershouse.com wrote: With all due respect, it's myopic opinions like yours and Michael's (his leans more towards apathy) which will harm the ability to get the project into the hands of people. I think (hope?) it can be agreed upon that the more that people are aware of Lucene.NET, the better it is for the project in general, and most importantly, the more potential that you have that someone will *contribute back* to it (and given what Lucene.NET has gone through in the past year, it desperately needs that participation). The fact of the matter is that Nuget puts packages in the hands of .NET developers, that leads to exposure and regardless of personal opinions on whether or not they *like* Nuget, it can't be denied that it's an *extremely* popular way to get libraries into people's projects. If you want to quibble over the actual numbers (and the definition of extremely popular) then that's fine, but here are the numbers you want: http://stats.nuget.org/ If you want to just tell that audience to take a leap, that's fine, but I think it would be foolish to do so otherwise. Additionally, given that Lucene.NET is already on Nuget, isn't there *any* concern that there isn't an official distro? Aren't you concerned about the integrity of the brand that so many of you fought to keep alive over the past year? There's no guarantee that what's on Nuget will be the official releases/builds that come out of this project, and I'm a little surprised there isn't more concern over that aspect either. Just my $0.02 - Nick -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:06 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts I am not against it, but personally think it as a toy. I am from the generation where people used vi to write codes. DIGY -Original Message- From: Aaron Powell [mailto:m...@aaron-powell.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:56 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts Any particular reason you guys are not interested in NuGet? Aaron Powell MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011 7:42 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts Sorry, but I feel the same as Neal. DIGY -Original Message- From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granr...@thermofisher.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:08 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject
Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Michael - Could be wrong, but I think Nick might have gotten you confused with Neal. Regardless, I completely agree with everything you just said. And, Yay for NuGet! Package management is the bomb. -T On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Michael Herndon mhern...@wickedsoftware.net wrote: Nick, The last e-mail was out of line and out of context. If anything, emails like that can push people into emotional or motivational apathy towards working on a project. 1) Lucene.Net will be getting nuget packages. People can hate on it, grumble, or not use it, but its a viable distribution vehicle. Its going in. This thread was to gather feedback on how people that would use it, see themselves using it. 2) Others might want alternatives to nuget that have not been provided yet. We should be open to providing distribution alternatives if enough people warrant it. Its not apathetic or impassive to think to that there might be more than one way to distribute releases. 3) Attack problems. Not people. If you believe a person is the problem, take the issue up with them offline. Those kinds of things are better face to face or through a phone call, or an exceptionally clear e-mail. Its way too easy for people to read into things too much or take things out of context in an e-mail. Attacking people also distracts people from focusing on the actual issue and prevents any actually logic or reason or sound argument from being heard. Its a good way to alienate people that you should actually be trying to persuade. 4) If I was actually apathetic and severely short sighted, I would not be spending my own vacation time this weekend automating nuget packages with the build scripts for Lucene.Net or experimenting Portable Library Tools for Lucene.Net 4.x to see if we can get it working on mobile. Nor would I have spent my last 4 day weekend setting up jenkins and local builds of Lucene.Net. Or put in the hours today to make sure the build scripts are granular enough to implement the smaller packages. 5) If you feel so passionately about all this, why not work towards being a contributor or committer and lead by example ? - Michael Since I'm the one implementing Nuget into the build process and I have not played with the nuget server or creating a package, it just seem wise to gather feedback on how people saw themselves using the contrib packages. On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] casper...@caspershouse.com wrote: With all due respect, it's myopic opinions like yours and Michael's (his leans more towards apathy) which will harm the ability to get the project into the hands of people. I think (hope?) it can be agreed upon that the more that people are aware of Lucene.NET, the better it is for the project in general, and most importantly, the more potential that you have that someone will *contribute back* to it (and given what Lucene.NET has gone through in the past year, it desperately needs that participation). The fact of the matter is that Nuget puts packages in the hands of .NET developers, that leads to exposure and regardless of personal opinions on whether or not they *like* Nuget, it can't be denied that it's an *extremely* popular way to get libraries into people's projects. If you want to quibble over the actual numbers (and the definition of extremely popular) then that's fine, but here are the numbers you want: http://stats.nuget.org/ If you want to just tell that audience to take a leap, that's fine, but I think it would be foolish to do so otherwise. Additionally, given that Lucene.NET is already on Nuget, isn't there *any* concern that there isn't an official distro? Aren't you concerned about the integrity of the brand that so many of you fought to keep alive over the past year? There's no guarantee that what's on Nuget will be the official releases/builds that come out of this project, and I'm a little surprised there isn't more concern over that aspect either. Just my $0.02 - Nick -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:06 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts I am not against it, but personally think it as a toy. I am from the generation where people used vi to write codes. DIGY -Original Message- From: Aaron Powell [mailto:m...@aaron-powell.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:56 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts Any particular reason you guys are not interested in NuGet? Aaron Powell MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011 7:42 AM
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
I'm going to vote +1 for granular. With the RC you could look at myget and have a Lucene.Net repository on there so people can go for unstable on myget, stables on nuget. Also, I came across this article which explains how to setup a build server to automatically push to nuget/ myget which could be useful to the maintainers: http://brendanforster.com/doing-the-build-server-dance-with-nuget.html Aaron Powell MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket -Original Message- From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 2:05 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts Right now there are two packages: Lucene Lucene.Contrib. My question to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple. +1 Granular, we just need to be good about descriptions. Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release? Having a package for the latest RC would probably be a good idea
Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
While it may be a bit redundant, why couldn't there be an individual package for each piece of contrib and a Lucene.Net Contrib (All) package that drags them all down. That way users can grab just the bit they need, or if they just want to get the whole thing, grab the All package. Thanks, Troy On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Aaron Powell m...@aaron-powell.com wrote: I'm going to vote +1 for granular. With the RC you could look at myget and have a Lucene.Net repository on there so people can go for unstable on myget, stables on nuget. Also, I came across this article which explains how to setup a build server to automatically push to nuget/ myget which could be useful to the maintainers: http://brendanforster.com/doing-the-build-server-dance-with-nuget.html Aaron Powell MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket -Original Message- From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 2:05 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts Right now there are two packages: Lucene Lucene.Contrib. My question to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple. +1 Granular, we just need to be good about descriptions. Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release? Having a package for the latest RC would probably be a good idea
Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Troy Howard thowar...@gmail.com wrote: While it may be a bit redundant, why couldn't there be an individual package for each piece of contrib and a Lucene.Net Contrib (All) package that drags them all down. That way users can grab just the bit they need, or if they just want to get the whole thing, grab the All package. Thanks, Troy That was the idea for the Lucene.Net-Essentials Lucene.Net-Full packages. We can also create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the other ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full. On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Aaron Powell m...@aaron-powell.com wrote: I'm going to vote +1 for granular. With the RC you could look at myget and have a Lucene.Net repository on there so people can go for unstable on myget, stables on nuget. Also, I came across this article which explains how to setup a build server to automatically push to nuget/ myget which could be useful to the maintainers: http://brendanforster.com/doing-the-build-server-dance-with-nuget.html Aaron Powell MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket -Original Message- From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 2:05 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts Right now there are two packages: Lucene Lucene.Contrib. My question to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple. +1 Granular, we just need to be good about descriptions. Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release? Having a package for the latest RC would probably be a good idea
