FWIW, we are already on github (https://github.com/apache/lucenenet) and there's actually a lot of interesting work to do that is not porting related. I mentioned quite a bit of it in my talk.
-- Itamar Syn-Hershko http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> Freelance Developer & Consultant Lucene.NET committer and PMC member On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Simone Chiaretta < [email protected]> wrote: > As I said many times already, the main reason why nobody contributes to > lucene.net is that porting code is not sexy. Actually is kind of boring. > I'm talking as a normal developer not involved in any big development. > > Indeed it would be polite for ayende or Microsoft to contribute back to > the project. > > Also moving to Github and getting away from the bureaucracy of the apache > foundation might help, but we had this discussion long time ago. > > Simone > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Itamar Syn-Hershko" <[email protected]> > Sent: 26/01/2016 15:20 > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Next sync release Lucene.net > > As with all OSS projects, In the end of day it really boils down to the > community. How big it is, and how active it is. > > I know for a fact Lucene.NET has a vast amount of users, including big > projects you all know (Nuget, RavenDB, Umbraco, and more) and in big > companies (several teams in Microsoft are using and also have contributed > code, for example). But the amount of active participants is very small, > and this is the main reason why we haven't made a release lately. > > Launching a new project that will allow to run Java Lucene via any CLR > wrapper for Java will run into the exact same issues. All code requires > maintenance. > > In fact, I spoke about exactly that a few months ago at .NET Fringe > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyhRwbiwgv0 > > We are making good progress and will eventually get to a 4.8 release, but > without more help from the community it will take us some time to get > there. And as I mentioned in the video, I find it utterly ridiculous that > companies are making money out of this OSS project for years now and don't > contribute back a single dime (or man hours). This, for sure, is a way to > make a project die. > > My $0.02. > > -- > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> > Freelance Developer & Consultant > Lucene.NET committer and PMC member > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Bart Czernicki < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > There definitely is a need for local in-process search technology that is > > not REST based. .NET developers have plenty of options there: Solr, > > ElasticSearch, Azure Search (on MSFT cloud). The network latency, https > > protocol and serialization/deserialization together are never going to be > > faster than in-process search. > > > > > > > > Lucene 4.x has some great improvements in search and faceting that would > > be great to have. I see this request come up a lot. > > > > > > > > [image: Image] <http://azure.microsoft.com/> > > > > * Bart Czernicki* > > > > Cloud Solution Architect | Azure SaaS ISV Solutions > > > > 609.519.2060 | [email protected] | Why Azure? > > <http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/overview/case-studies/> > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Michael D Gorsich [mailto:[email protected]] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 26, 2016 8:50 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > > > > *Subject:* Re: Next sync release Lucene.net > > > > > > > > Could it be it works so well there just isn't much broad-based need for > > change? Don't the newer changes to Lucene tend to cover more specialized > > needs, with correspondingly fewer developers willing to work on it, or > > needing the functions? > > > > I know for our org's needs Lucene 3.0.3 seems perfect as-is. > > > > > > *Michael Gorsich Senior Developer, DTE Energy - ITS* > > 734.586.1531 (Fermi 2) > > [email protected] > > > > > > [image: Inactive hide details for "Michael O'Shea" ---2016.01.26 > > 08:28:28---I managed to integrate Lucene.Net into a content > post-proce]"Michael > > O'Shea" ---2016.01.26 08:28:28---I managed to integrate Lucene.Net into a > > content post-processing system on an Azure worker process. > > > > From: "Michael O'Shea" <[email protected]> > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Date: 2016.01.26 08:28 > > Subject: Re: Next sync release Lucene.net > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > I managed to integrate Lucene.Net into a content post-processing system > on > > an Azure worker process. > > > > I would be sad to see Lucene.Net go but it is true that there seems to be > > very little uptake for the project. Weird. > > > > Michael > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Erik Hatcher <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Or via HTTP? Solr! :) > > > > > > > On Jan 26, 2016, at 06:08, Allan, Brad (Bracknell) < > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > This question sparked a thought.... > > > > I wonder if it's time to think about an alternate way to make Lucene > > > available to the .NET community - some sort of JNI wrapper? > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Nimesh Dhruve [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected] > >] > > > > Sent: 25 January 2016 18:17 > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Next sync release Lucene.net > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I am wondering if there is any active development for Lucene.net > going > > > on to keep it sync with Java Lucene and if so when is the next release > > for > > > Lucene.net planned? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Nimesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > CheckFree Solutions Limited (trading as Fiserv) > > > > Registered Office: Eversheds House, 70 Great Bridgewater Street, > > > Manchester, M15 ES > > > > Registered in England: No. 2694333 > > > > > >
