So here's the scoop. For Apache based projects, we'll actually get individual Resharper developer licenses for each active developer. This seems to indicate that only commiters would get licenses.
To actually get your license, you need to meet the following requirements, then apply here<http://www.jetbrains.com/eforms/openSourceRequestApache.action?licenseRequest=RSOSA> : - You are the project lead or a committer - You have been working on your open source project for a minimum of 3 months - Your community is active. This means that you have recent activity in your newsgroups or forums - You have an updated News section on your site - You release updated builds on a regular basis The 3 month requirement is really the only sticking point, since the commiter list is pretty much new. Perhaps this can be worked around. You also need an apache.org email address to apply. While it would be nice for all developers contributing to the project to get licenses, it isn't completely necessary. As long as at least 1 commiter can use Resharper to autoformat / refactor code, we'll be better off. Peter Mateja peter.mat...@gmail.com On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Peter Mateja <peter.mat...@gmail.com> wrote: > You are correct... > > http://www.jetbrains.com/resharper/buy/buy.jsp#openSource > > Just needs to be applied for. I can dig into this a bit further. > > Peter Mateja > peter.mat...@gmail.com > > > > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com> wrote: > >> JetBrains routinely give away licenses for OSS >> >> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com >> >wrote: >> >> > I wonder if we could get a free license for open source. A few people >> have >> > mentioned that often companies have these provisions. >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Peter Mateja <peter.mat...@gmail.com> >> > Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 15:49:32 >> > To: <lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org> >> > Subject: Re: Proposal Stage: Net Idiomatic Api Version >> > >> > Resharper <http://www.jetbrains.com/resharper/>is a fantastic tool for >> > auto-formatting code to a particular standard. I haven't done a >> complete >> > sweep, but it seems that the default settings match the Microsoft >> > guidelines >> > closely. It isn't free unfortunately, but if you're a professional .Net >> > developer it makes life much easier! >> > >> > Also, I 2nd the Krzysztof book. Excellent reading. I'll dig it out and >> > give it another scan. >> > >> > Peter Mateja >> > peter.mat...@gmail.com >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > > I agree with the suggestion to follow the MS Coding standard. It's a >> > > good general guideline. Specifically, I'd like to follow all >> > > guidelines put forth in the book: >> > > >> > > Framework Design Guidelines: Conventions, Idioms, and Patterns for >> > > Reusable .NET Libraries by Krzysztof Cwalina and Brad Abrams >> > > http://amzn.com/0321246756 >> > > >> > > There's also a lecture that Krysztof gave that's available as a >> > > offline video download here (the streaming version isn't available at >> > > the moment for some reason): >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> http://download.microsoft.com/download/8/0/8/808412ec-2561-413d-a9e3-5cd47d37d763/FDGNetCast.zip >> > > >> > > >> > > With regards to the specifics of the API, I think we should try to >> > > bring together the existing forks (Lucere, Lucille, and Aimee.Net) and >> > > attempt to merge them into a single consistent alternative API for >> > > Lucene.Net. They all use similar but slightly different tactics to >> > > ".NETify" the codebase. >> > > >> > > Also, significant community feedback will be necessary before we >> > > proceed to far down that road. We'll have a lot of work ahead of us >> > > just getting up to date releases finished for the 1:1 API port. It's >> > > my opinion though, that these can be separate and parallel development >> > > efforts. >> > > >> > > I made a request of the community in the Lucere project mailing list >> > > to respond with ideas about what an ideal .NET API would look like, >> > > and how it would function. Specifically, I was hoping to get >> > > pseudo-code examples of how end users would like to use Lucene. Even >> > > something as simple as: >> > > >> > > using(var luceneIndex = new LuceneIndex.Open("C:\foo\bar")) >> > > { >> > > var hitDocs = from doc in luceneIndex where >> > > doc.Field["content"].Match("foo") select doc; >> > > } >> > > >> > > This represents a lot of ideas all in one little code snippet. Maybe >> > > this isn't an ideal API, maybe it is... If we collect a bunch of code >> > > samples from people like this, we can discuss the merits of various >> > > ideas for the API and settle on an ideal way to present the >> > > functionality of the library in a way that will integrate well with >> > > the .NET 3.5/4.0 environment. >> > > >> > > I didn't get a lot of responses in the Lucere mailing list but perhaps >> > > the Lucene.Net community will have some ideas. We should probably >> > > cross-post to the lucene-net-user mailing list with a request for >> > > ideas. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Troy >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Michael Herndon <mhern...@o19s.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > *Net Idiomatic Api Version* >> > > > *We should probably be looking for with this criteria is readability >> & >> > > > getting people familiar with any new code base faster within their >> own >> > > > Idiom. * >> > > > * >> > > > * >> > > > Starting with a proposal that we use the internal Ms coding >> > > > guidelines< >> > http://blogs.msdn.com/b/brada/archive/2005/01/26/361363.aspx> >> > > > for >> > > > the idiomatic version, not to make anyone's life miserable or coding >> > less >> > > > enjoyable or anything. >> > > > >> > > > But its already documented, we can easily point to it without having >> to >> > > > write up our own guidelines, and everyone who works inside of .net >> > should >> > > be >> > > > remotely familiar with it, meaning someone can just come in and >> crank >> > out >> > > > code. >> > > > >> > > > If need be, we let people work on the code base in their own style >> and >> > > when >> > > > they are done working on a particular area, let them reformat it or >> > just >> > > run >> > > > a tool that auto formats code before each release. >> > > > >> > > > I know their is religious wars fought over this stuff, I don't want >> to >> > > > create one. I could be wrong about the above, but what again, the >> > goals >> > > > should be familiarity, comfort, creating a bigger community. >> > > > >> > > > Also uses of core Interfaces, Annotations, & Classes where possible. >> > > (What >> > > > are some of these that you would like to see other than >> IDisposable?) >> > > > >> > > > A good book to comb over with the latest edition is the "Framework >> > > Design >> > > > Guidelines" 2nd edition. >> > > > >> > > > * >> > > > * >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Michael Herndon >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
