On 2011-12-01, Christopher Currens wrote: > There are a few patches that were made for 2.9.4 between when the 3.0.3 > branch was forked from trunk and now that haven't been merged in. It looks > like I branched it on Nov. 7th, so > LUCENENET-431, LUCENENET-433, LUCENENET-453, and LUCENENET-455 may or may > not be fixed, since that also largely depends on what was ported (that code > may be removed, or changed in the new version).
I can easily check out the branch and provide the equivalent of LUCENENET-453 for it if that helps. > Additionally, and I'm being very frank about this, our goals of having > a line-by-line port *and* a .NET version may or may not be possible > with the current number of committers we have, considering the amount > of time everyone has to give to the project differs greatly by so many > factors Probably not. Are there additional people who are no committers yet who want to help? I realize the two approaches are apealing to different kinds of developers. The line-by-line approach will give you the power (and bugs) of the Java version and is pretty easy to maintain once done but sounds boring. There is not much creativity involved. My understanding of the docs has been that a line-by-line port would still be kept but an additional .NET API was provided. I may be totally off, but that's how I read it. > I think it's important we discuss this and make sure everyone is on the > same page (it's possible we already are, and just haven't officially > documented it anywhere). Then I think we can move forward as a group in > the project. +1 Stefan
