Re: "I'm not sure if there is a coding difference between the C# stuff and the other directory stuff."
There are a few minor code changes in the new branch vs the C# branch, but those are things like framework target, copyright notices, etc.. I didn't change code significantly, and unit tests still pass. Re: "we can probably branch C# to something like pre_NewStructure" I made a tag right before committing the directory changes for this exact purpose. It's here: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/tags/pre-layout-change Regarding the hackathon next week, I'd like to put together a list of tasks specifically for this weekend to give people some focus on where they can contribute. Some of these will be major tasks with high priority (like finishing up the 2.9.4 release) and others will be of lower priority like working on the samples/wiki/website... Those will great skills in creating GUI apps, but less skills with writing back-end libraries might want to contribute to Luke.Net, even if it's not a high priority. I agree with Michael that we should tweet/blog/wiki/mailing list the details of the event. I would make a wiki page on the topic, but it seems I don't have sufficient privileges on our Confluence wiki to do that. Can whoever the admin is give me rights to add/edit wiki pages? My login is 'thoward'. Thanks, Troy On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>wrote: > > 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 I updated a ton of the analyers, but I believe them to be out of date 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 >
