I think Troy has the structure ready to roll - I'm not sure if there is a coding difference between the C# stuff and the other directory stuff. If there isn't then we can probably branch C# to something like pre_NewStructure (someone help me with a better name), then remove it from the trunk. Troy I believe was investigating the legal task - perhaps he can update us if he ever got an answer If you want to jump into a smaller task take a look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-372 (currently assigned to me). I updated a ton of the analyers, but I believe them to be out of date from the java 2.9.4 branch because I used the attached files from Pasha without paying attention to the age of them. So those could use a review. I also never ported the test cases, which we definately should have.
---------------------------------------- > Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 10:04:03 +0200 > From: ma...@rotselleri.com > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net Hackathon (5/13-/516) > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Prescott Nasser wrote: > > > > +1 to getting 2.9.4 ready to roll + the changes to the directory structure > > we have > > going > > +1 for 2.9.4 and directory structure. > To make that happen, I'd like to know what needs to be done and in > what way I could be of any help. There are 10 open issues for 2.9.4, > and (apart from the Luke issues mentioned below) none of them makes me > feel that I can grab it and start coding. > > > -Sharpen stuff - I haven't had time to get it really working (not to > > mention I don't know > > eclipse from a hole in the ground). I haven't heard from Alex in a while, > > who I think is > > the most knowledgeable on the subject. > > Also most important to get closer to the java version. > > > -.NET syntax. > +1, the API often feels quite awkward to use. > > > That said, I think Luke is important. If we left with the idea of you could > > run Luke in > > java just find, we could also just say use lucene/solr and the api > > provided, no need > > for the Lucene.Net project. (I know it's a bit different). That said, I > > don't think it's top > > priority, but it would be nice to have a .net implimentation. > > Agree, it would be nice to have. > > > Sergey was working on a port of this in WPF - can he perhaps provide an > > update on > > what's going on with that? I think it was located at bit bucket at one > > point, and then I > > lost track.. > > The WPF track was abandoned due to absent WPF support in mono. I > adopted code attached to LUCENET-391 by Pasha Bizhan and it is > continued on > https://github.com/mammo/LukeSharp (mirror at > https://bitbucket.org/mammo/lukesharp). Testing and reporting of > broken or missing features would be most appreciated. > > I am not sure how to resolve the Luke legal sub-task LUCENET-397, is > it enough that Pasha has attached the code or is more paper work > required? > > > /amanuel
