I don't see the g branch differing all that much from the line-by-line port.
All the g branch does is change some data types as generics, but line by
line the code the same once the generics are declared.
I don't see 2.9.4g being any closer to a .NET style version than 2.9.4.
While it does gene
if our primary goals become focusing on a
> > fully .Net style port) Either way, any sort of manual or
> > partly-automated process would still require a lot of work to make
> > sure things are ported correctly. I also think it's most
> manageable
> > if it wer
gt; Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Asking about Lucene.net License
>
> I think he was asking if any of the code within Lucene.Net is GPL.
>
>
> ________
> From: Scott Lombard
> To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 5:0
gt; >> > > > goodness like LINQ (we do this internally in our company at the
> > >> > moment);
> > >> > > but
> > >> > > > leave the core of the project on a line by line port.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Just my tu-pence worth.
-line version. And at
> > what
> > > > stage is it not just not a line-by-line port, but not a port at all?
> > > >
> > > > At the same time, I recognise that if this project is going to
> > continue,
> > > > and attract good develope
.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
> >
> > This is has been discussed many times.
> > Lucene.NET is not valid, the code cannot be trusted, if it is not a
> > line-by-line port. It ceases to be Lucene.
> >
> > - Neal
> >
> > -Original
After the large community response about moving the code base from .Net 2.0
to Net 4.0 I am trying to figure out what is the need for a line-by-line
port. Starting with Digy's excellent work on the conversion to generics a
priority of the 2.9.4g release is the 2 packages would not be
interchang
I copied last month's report and updated it. Please review my changes and
revise as necessary.
Thanks
Scott
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bode...@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 8:31 AM
> To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: [Lucene.Net] Board
We have been discussing under
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-380 the possibility of
bringing Sharpen into our repo under a db4o Opensource Compatibility License
(dOCL) license. Here are the basics of what we have been discussing.
Versant allows db4o products to be licensed thr
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-380?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13010857#comment-13010857
]
Scott Lombard commented on LUCENENET-380:
-
My point when starting this i
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-380?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13009726#comment-13009726
]
Scott Lombard commented on LUCENENET-380:
-
I was investigating what lic
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-399?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Scott Lombard updated LUCENENET-399:
Remaining Estimate: 20h (was: 20m)
> Port changes from Java Lucene 2.9.3 and 2.
I wanted to get a final agreement on how we want to handle commits to the
repository. There have been discussions in a couple of different threads
about this topic. I know patches, branches and just go for it has been
discussed and different people have different ideas. I just wanted to know
wha
13 matches
Mail list logo
