Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
Ok, will add the SharpZipLib ... cool thing of Nuget is that we don't have to add it to our dist.. just add a dependency to the original pkg, so with its own licenses and requirements. Changes: fixed some texts in the nuspecs, and added the nuspecs for the old pgks. I'll create a JIRA task and attach the changes over there. I'll let you know as soon as I publish the pkgs Simo On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.comwrote: Please test them and let me know if you find any problem: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5037284/Lucene.net-nuget/Lucene.2.9.4.1.zip Looks good I've seen ICSharpCode.SharpZipLib is always included in the bin folder after compiling, but if I'm not wrong it's only needed if compressed indexes are needed: shall I add it as dependency or not? I would say include it, that way everything works out of the box. I did a few changes: do I create a diff file and send it to someone? What do you mean changes? I guess you could send them to me, or attach them to a JIRA Thanks Simone for tackling this ~Prescott Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 00:24:28 +0100 From: simone.chiare...@gmail.com To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget So, I created the packages using the binary release available on the official site, but using the XML doc I got for building it on my machine. Please test them and let me know if you find any problem: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5037284/Lucene.net-nuget/Lucene.2.9.4.1.zip To test them unzip to file somewhere in your disk, and specify the folder as path for Nuget in the package management settings window. If all is good I'll push them online tomorrow I noticed not all contrib projects have been released as binary, so I'm including in the contrib pkg only the ones that are part of the binary release on the apache site. I didn't create the sample package with the demo apps because it's just the compiled apps, and not of a create use for those who want to study it. I'll look into making a proper demo pkg in the next weeks. I've seen ICSharpCode.SharpZipLib is always included in the bin folder after compiling, but if I'm not wrong it's only needed if compressed indexes are needed: shall I add it as dependency or not? Finally I needed a logo for the package: I used that one https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/trunk/branding/logo/lucene-net-icon-128x128.png But if would be great if it was also somewhere in the public site. For this version I think it's ok to leave it there, but maybe for a next release it would be good to publish it in the website. I did a few changes: do I create a diff file and send it to someone? Simone On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, maybe I'm missing something, but looks like the snk file for strongly signing is in the public repo on svn.apache.org Simone On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: Good... no need to have another key... Simo --- Simone Chiaretta @simonech Sent from a tablet On 01/dic/2011, at 21:04, Michael Herndon mhern...@wickedsoftware.net wrote: Keep in mind tho that having the token checked in somewhere in the source repository is not a good idea b/c someone could use it and publish malware or trojans under your identity. So unless the token is stored outside the source repository, it's not a good idea to have it in the CI. - stored in an ASF private repo. the a new key probably needs to be generated and stored in the private ASF repo as well. The CI build is at builds.apache.org, however its not complete. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: Mine below On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Michael Herndon mhern...@wickedsoftware.net wrote: On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: You mean a different impersonal Nuget account? yes. the goal of the impersonal account was to allow committers to push nuget packages in an automated way without the need of having their own account. there was some preliminary work of building nuget packages using the build scripts. Sorry, I haven't followed a lot lately: at the end, did we end up using teamcity on codebetter or another build system? I remember there were discussion on that but don't remember how they ended. there has been talk on various nuget channels about allowing nuget to have --pre tag or having a separate build channel. If you're not familiar with gems/bundler, its basically
Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
Yes, there is one: http://nuget.org/List/Packages/SharpZipLib and just one version available (0.86), so not much of choice :) On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Michael Herndon mhern...@wickedsoftware.net wrote: It *should be possible to add icsharpcode.sharpziplib.dll as a dependency as nuget package already exists for it. I think it just needs to specify the version. On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, will add the SharpZipLib ... cool thing of Nuget is that we don't have to add it to our dist.. just add a dependency to the original pkg, so with its own licenses and requirements. Changes: fixed some texts in the nuspecs, and added the nuspecs for the old pgks. I'll create a JIRA task and attach the changes over there. I'll let you know as soon as I publish the pkgs Simo On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.com wrote: Please test them and let me know if you find any problem: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5037284/Lucene.net-nuget/Lucene.2.9.4.1.zip Looks good I've seen ICSharpCode.SharpZipLib is always included in the bin folder after compiling, but if I'm not wrong it's only needed if compressed indexes are needed: shall I add it as dependency or not? I would say include it, that way everything works out of the box. I did a few changes: do I create a diff file and send it to someone? What do you mean changes? I guess you could send them to me, or attach them to a JIRA Thanks Simone for tackling this ~Prescott Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 00:24:28 +0100 From: simone.chiare...@gmail.com To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget So, I created the packages using the binary release available on the official site, but using the XML doc I got for building it on my machine. Please test them and let me know if you find any problem: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5037284/Lucene.net-nuget/Lucene.2.9.4.1.zip To test them unzip to file somewhere in your disk, and specify the folder as path for Nuget in the package management settings window. If all is good I'll push them online tomorrow I noticed not all contrib projects have been released as binary, so I'm including in the contrib pkg only the ones that are part of the binary release on the apache site. I didn't create the sample package with the demo apps because it's just the compiled apps, and not of a create use for those who want to study it. I'll look into making a proper demo pkg in the next weeks. I've seen ICSharpCode.SharpZipLib is always included in the bin folder after compiling, but if I'm not wrong it's only needed if compressed indexes are needed: shall I add it as dependency or not? Finally I needed a logo for the package: I used that one https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/trunk/branding/logo/lucene-net-icon-128x128.png But if would be great if it was also somewhere in the public site. For this version I think it's ok to leave it there, but maybe for a next release it would be good to publish it in the website. I did a few changes: do I create a diff file and send it to someone? Simone On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, maybe I'm missing something, but looks like the snk file for strongly signing is in the public repo on svn.apache.org Simone On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: Good... no need to have another key... Simo --- Simone Chiaretta @simonech Sent from a tablet On 01/dic/2011, at 21:04, Michael Herndon mhern...@wickedsoftware.net wrote: Keep in mind tho that having the token checked in somewhere in the source repository is not a good idea b/c someone could use it and publish malware or trojans under your identity. So unless the token is stored outside the source repository, it's not a good idea to have it in the CI. - stored in an ASF private repo. the a new key probably needs to be generated and stored in the private ASF repo as well. The CI build is at builds.apache.org, however its not complete. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: Mine below On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Michael Herndon mhern...@wickedsoftware.net wrote: On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta
Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
All 4 packages are have been published: http://nuget.org/List/Search?searchTerm=author%3A%20Lucene.Net%20Community here a blog post with the announcement and thanking the guys that gave us their package ids http://codeclimber.net.nz/archive/2011/12/02/Lucene-net-2-9-4-is-out-now-with-NuGet.aspx On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, there is one: http://nuget.org/List/Packages/SharpZipLib and just one version available (0.86), so not much of choice :) On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Michael Herndon mhern...@wickedsoftware.net wrote: It *should be possible to add icsharpcode.sharpziplib.dll as a dependency as nuget package already exists for it. I think it just needs to specify the version. On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, will add the SharpZipLib ... cool thing of Nuget is that we don't have to add it to our dist.. just add a dependency to the original pkg, so with its own licenses and requirements. Changes: fixed some texts in the nuspecs, and added the nuspecs for the old pgks. I'll create a JIRA task and attach the changes over there. I'll let you know as soon as I publish the pkgs Simo On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.com wrote: Please test them and let me know if you find any problem: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5037284/Lucene.net-nuget/Lucene.2.9.4.1.zip Looks good I've seen ICSharpCode.SharpZipLib is always included in the bin folder after compiling, but if I'm not wrong it's only needed if compressed indexes are needed: shall I add it as dependency or not? I would say include it, that way everything works out of the box. I did a few changes: do I create a diff file and send it to someone? What do you mean changes? I guess you could send them to me, or attach them to a JIRA Thanks Simone for tackling this ~Prescott Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 00:24:28 +0100 From: simone.chiare...@gmail.com To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget So, I created the packages using the binary release available on the official site, but using the XML doc I got for building it on my machine. Please test them and let me know if you find any problem: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5037284/Lucene.net-nuget/Lucene.2.9.4.1.zip To test them unzip to file somewhere in your disk, and specify the folder as path for Nuget in the package management settings window. If all is good I'll push them online tomorrow I noticed not all contrib projects have been released as binary, so I'm including in the contrib pkg only the ones that are part of the binary release on the apache site. I didn't create the sample package with the demo apps because it's just the compiled apps, and not of a create use for those who want to study it. I'll look into making a proper demo pkg in the next weeks. I've seen ICSharpCode.SharpZipLib is always included in the bin folder after compiling, but if I'm not wrong it's only needed if compressed indexes are needed: shall I add it as dependency or not? Finally I needed a logo for the package: I used that one https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/trunk/branding/logo/lucene-net-icon-128x128.png But if would be great if it was also somewhere in the public site. For this version I think it's ok to leave it there, but maybe for a next release it would be good to publish it in the website. I did a few changes: do I create a diff file and send it to someone? Simone On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, maybe I'm missing something, but looks like the snk file for strongly signing is in the public repo on svn.apache.org Simone On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: Good... no need to have another key... Simo --- Simone Chiaretta @simonech Sent from a tablet On 01/dic/2011, at 21:04, Michael Herndon mhern...@wickedsoftware.net wrote: Keep in mind tho that having the token checked in somewhere in the source repository is not a good idea b/c someone could use it and publish malware or trojans under your identity. So unless the token is stored outside the source repository, it's not a good idea to have it in the CI. - stored in an ASF private repo. the a new key probably needs to be generated and stored in the private ASF repo
Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
I saw the current version is strongly signed, that's why I added it. Usually none releases signed versions, because users usually sign them with their own key anyway, so if it was for me I'd skip that. For the next release it would be great to add a step to the build script so that the package is automatically created Simone On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.comwrote: Sorry, I'm behind - just reading the Nuget Documentation now. I think we want to use Lucene.Net, I agree with everything else, but I have no idea how to modify the other packages. I'm also not sure how to sign our our code base 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 luceneby 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
On 2011-12-01, Simone Chiaretta wrote: Currently there is a bit of confusion in the list of packages: - There is Lucene with project id luceneby 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 IIUC part of the problem is that neither of those is controlled by the Lucene.NET community here. Stefan
Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
So, no access to that packages via admin to delete them? Shall I contact someone of the nuget team to sort that out? Simone On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote: On 2011-12-01, Simone Chiaretta wrote: Currently there is a bit of confusion in the list of packages: - There is Lucene with project id luceneby 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 IIUC part of the problem is that neither of those is controlled by the Lucene.NET community here. Stefan -- 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
RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
I was about to send an email to i...@outercurve.org, but if you have a better connection that would be helpful, yes. I just tried publishing under Lucene.Net and got shot down Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:23:19 +0100 From: simone.chiare...@gmail.com To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget So, no access to that packages via admin to delete them? Shall I contact someone of the nuget team to sort that out? Simone On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote: On 2011-12-01, Simone Chiaretta wrote: Currently there is a bit of confusion in the list of packages: - There is Lucene with project id luceneby 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 IIUC part of the problem is that neither of those is controlled by the Lucene.NET community here. Stefan -- 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
The other weird thing is that if I try to contact the owner of the package it says no owner for this package Simo On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: So, no access to that packages via admin to delete them? Shall I contact someone of the nuget team to sort that out? Simone On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.orgwrote: On 2011-12-01, Simone Chiaretta wrote: Currently there is a bit of confusion in the list of packages: - There is Lucene with project id luceneby 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 IIUC part of the problem is that neither of those is controlled by the Lucene.NET community here. Stefan -- 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
RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
Thanks! Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:28:43 +0100 From: simone.chiare...@gmail.com To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget Sure, will contact Phil On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.comwrote: I was about to send an email to i...@outercurve.org, but if you have a better connection that would be helpful, yes. I just tried publishing under Lucene.Net and got shot down Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:23:19 +0100 From: simone.chiare...@gmail.com To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget So, no access to that packages via admin to delete them? Shall I contact someone of the nuget team to sort that out? Simone On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote: On 2011-12-01, Simone Chiaretta wrote: Currently there is a bit of confusion in the list of packages: - There is Lucene with project id luceneby 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 IIUC part of the problem is that neither of those is controlled by the Lucene.NET community here. Stefan -- 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
Mail sent... let's see what he answers. Simone On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: Sure, will contact Phil On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.comwrote: I was about to send an email to i...@outercurve.org, but if you have a better connection that would be helpful, yes. I just tried publishing under Lucene.Net and got shot down Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:23:19 +0100 From: simone.chiare...@gmail.com To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget So, no access to that packages via admin to delete them? Shall I contact someone of the nuget team to sort that out? Simone On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote: On 2011-12-01, Simone Chiaretta wrote: Currently there is a bit of confusion in the list of packages: - There is Lucene with project id luceneby 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 IIUC part of the problem is that neither of those is controlled by the Lucene.NET community here. Stefan -- 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
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.comwrote: 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 luceneby 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
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 luceneby 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
RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
- 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 luceneby 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
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.comwrote: - 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 luceneby 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
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.comwrote: - 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 luceneby 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
RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
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.comwrote: - 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 luceneby 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
Keep in mind tho that having the token checked in somewhere in the source repository is not a good idea b/c someone could use it and publish malware or trojans under your identity. So unless the token is stored outside the source repository, it's not a good idea to have it in the CI. - stored in an ASF private repo. the a new key probably needs to be generated and stored in the private ASF repo as well. The CI build is at builds.apache.org, however its not complete. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: Mine below On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Michael Herndon mhern...@wickedsoftware.net wrote: On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: You mean a different impersonal Nuget account? yes. the goal of the impersonal account was to allow committers to push nuget packages in an automated way without the need of having their own account. there was some preliminary work of building nuget packages using the build scripts. Sorry, I haven't followed a lot lately: at the end, did we end up using teamcity on codebetter or another build system? I remember there were discussion on that but don't remember how they ended. there has been talk on various nuget channels about allowing nuget to have --pre tag or having a separate build channel. If you're not familiar with gems/bundler, its basically a way to push packages that are not official releases. (nightly, ctp, beta, etc). So in theory the CI could build packages nightly if the build does not fail into a channels. its also helps from an overall branding perspective. The author that appears on the nuget gallery page can be different from the owner that puts the package online. From what I've seen also used in MS pkgs devs have their in accounts but pkgs have multiple owners. If its possible to do so link your account as an owner prescott's account with the impersonal one. Keep in mind tho that having the token checked in somewhere in the source repository is not a good idea b/c someone could use it and publish malware or trojans under your identity. So unless the token is stored outside the source repository, it's not a good idea to have it in the CI. One last thing: I notice that the official lib is strongly named... again, not a good idea to have the key checked in the source control. I guess now someone owns the key for the strong naming and does the signing offline from the CI. Is that correct? But if you want we can also go with the Lucene.net team account. Simo -- 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
Good... no need to have another key... Simo --- Simone Chiaretta @simonech Sent from a tablet On 01/dic/2011, at 21:04, Michael Herndon mhern...@wickedsoftware.net wrote: Keep in mind tho that having the token checked in somewhere in the source repository is not a good idea b/c someone could use it and publish malware or trojans under your identity. So unless the token is stored outside the source repository, it's not a good idea to have it in the CI. - stored in an ASF private repo. the a new key probably needs to be generated and stored in the private ASF repo as well. The CI build is at builds.apache.org, however its not complete. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: Mine below On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Michael Herndon mhern...@wickedsoftware.net wrote: On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta simone.chiare...@gmail.com wrote: You mean a different impersonal Nuget account? yes. the goal of the impersonal account was to allow committers to push nuget packages in an automated way without the need of having their own account. there was some preliminary work of building nuget packages using the build scripts. Sorry, I haven't followed a lot lately: at the end, did we end up using teamcity on codebetter or another build system? I remember there were discussion on that but don't remember how they ended. there has been talk on various nuget channels about allowing nuget to have --pre tag or having a separate build channel. If you're not familiar with gems/bundler, its basically a way to push packages that are not official releases. (nightly, ctp, beta, etc). So in theory the CI could build packages nightly if the build does not fail into a channels. its also helps from an overall branding perspective. The author that appears on the nuget gallery page can be different from the owner that puts the package online. From what I've seen also used in MS pkgs devs have their in accounts but pkgs have multiple owners. If its possible to do so link your account as an owner prescott's account with the impersonal one. Keep in mind tho that having the token checked in somewhere in the source repository is not a good idea b/c someone could use it and publish malware or trojans under your identity. So unless the token is stored outside the source repository, it's not a good idea to have it in the CI. One last thing: I notice that the official lib is strongly named... again, not a good idea to have the key checked in the source control. I guess now someone owns the key for the strong naming and does the signing offline from the CI. Is that correct? But if you want we can also go with the Lucene.net team account. Simo -- 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
