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 >> 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 >> >> >> >> >
