We have 4.0 only. There is a way to slightly modify to compile to 2.0 ( digy replied to a thread a day or two ago regarding this). However, that code didn't go through a vote, and we believe there is a memory leak in it as well
Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Simone Chiaretta Sent: 12/1/2011 9:05 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget One last thing: the binaries are just of .NET 4.0? or do we have different bins of 2.0 and 4.0? Simone On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Simone Chiaretta <simone.chiare...@gmail.com > wrote: > Ok, I'll starting working on them (the nuspecs files in build folder). > When I get access to the Lucene.Net pkg id I'll upload them. > > If you give me your nuget gallery username I'll add you to the package > owners. > > I'll also contact all other projects that are referencing to Lucene to > tell them to update the pkg id to depend on, or to fix the dep to 2.9.2 > (and not >2.9.2) > > Simone > > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>wrote: > >> >> > - Lucene.Net to contain the core >> > - Lucene.Contrib to contain the contrib and dep on Lucene.Net (there is >> > no point in shipping contrib alone) >> > - Lucene.Net.Sample to contain some samples (and a reference to >> > Lucene.Net) >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> > - Lucene: either empty with just a reference to Lucene.Net or just a >> > README and description that asks to update reference to another package >> > >> > What do you think? Biggest problem is that Lucene is the de-facto >> offical >> > pkg id. Is it ok to switch to the Lucene.Net brand? or do you think we >> > should use keep the Lucene brand? IIUC we want to use our .NET brand >> > instead of the "java" one. >> > >> >> >> I think we want to change to .Net, even if we have to blank out Lucene or >> put in a readme (I'd vote for blanking it out imo). >> >> >> >> > I can grant ownership right to other people so someone else can work on >> it >> > if I get hit by a bus. >> > Prescott and Michael? >> > >> >> >> >> Those are probably good >> >> >> >> >> > >> > Simone >> > >> > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Simone Chiaretta < >> simone.chiare...@gmail.com >> > > wrote: >> > >> > > Guys, if you want I can take ownership of the whole NuGet thing, from >> > > getting hold of the right package id, to publishing the nuget pkgs, >> and >> > > maybe adding a quickstart pkg >> > > Let me know if it's ok, or someone is already working on that. >> > > >> > > Simone >> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Michael Herndon < >> > > mhern...@wickedsoftware.net> wrote: >> > > >> > >> if you look inside of trunk/build/scripts/ there are three nuspecs >> > >> under their respective folder names. >> > >> all, contrib, and core. >> > >> >> > >> all is basically a dependency on contrib & core. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Prescott Nasser < >> geobmx...@hotmail.com >> > >> >wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > We also discussed a contrib package - but we never really had a >> decision >> > >> > if we should be doing one package per contrib project or a single >> > >> contrib >> > >> > project. >> > >> > >> > >> > ---------------------------------------- >> > >> > > Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:00:24 +0100 >> > >> > > From: simone.chiare...@gmail.com >> > >> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org >> > >> > > Subject: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Dears, >> > >> > > now, in the .NET ecosystem of opensource libraries it is super >> > >> important >> > >> > to >> > >> > > have the nuget package released in sync with the binary release. >> > >> Actually >> > >> > > many project are even just releasing the nuget package. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Currently there is a bit of confusion in the list of packages: >> > >> > > >> > >> > > - There is "Lucene" with project id "lucene"by Apache SF relased >> on >> > >> jan >> > >> > > 11 frozen on version 2.9.2.2 >> http://nuget.org/List/Packages/Lucene >> > >> > > - There is "Lucene.Net - (strong named 2.0/4.0) - 2.9.2.2" with >> > >> project >> > >> > > id "lucene.net" released on Sept 11 still by Apache SF on >> version >> > >> > > 2.9.2.2 http://nuget.org/List/Packages/Lucene.Net >> > >> > > >> > >> > > I guess ppl think the good one is "lucene" b/c it has 3k >> download vs >> > >> 173 >> > >> > of >> > >> > > the other (almost 300 x month vs 85 x month) >> > >> > > >> > >> > > But nothing yet on 2.9.4. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > I suggest we reorganize the Nuget packages doing: >> > >> > > 1 - *delete *the "lucene" package (or add a new version with >> just a >> > >> > readme >> > >> > > file that clearly marks it is obsolete if not possible to remove >> the >> > >> > > project) >> > >> > > 2 - *rename *the "lucene.net" package public title to >> "Lucene.net" >> > >> > (remove >> > >> > > the version number as they are not supposed to stay in the name) >> > >> > > 3 - *create *a "lucene.net.strong" and move here the strongly >> signed >> > >> > > libraries >> > >> > > 4 - *upgrade both* to 2.9.4 >> > >> > > >> > >> > > I think the script to create the nuget pkg is already in place, >> if >> > >> not, >> > >> > let >> > >> > > me know and I'll look into making one. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > As last thing, I just want to stress on the importance of having >> a >> > >> NuGet >> > >> > > pkg nowadays to be relevant in the .NET space >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Simone >> > >> > > >> > >> > > -- >> > >> > > Simone Chiaretta >> > >> > > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider >> > >> > > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz >> > >> > > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber >> > >> > > twitter: @simonech >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from >> magic >> > >> > > "Life is short, play hard" >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Simone Chiaretta >> > > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider >> > > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz >> > > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber >> > > twitter: @simonech >> > > >> > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic >> > > "Life is short, play hard" >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Simone Chiaretta >> > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider >> > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz >> > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber >> > twitter: @simonech >> > >> > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic >> > "Life is short, play hard" >> > > > > -- > Simone Chiaretta > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber > twitter: @simonech > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic > "Life is short, play hard" > -- Simone Chiaretta Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber twitter: @simonech Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic "Life is short, play hard"
