[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-465?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13192037#comment-13192037
]
João Rosa commented on LUCENENET-465:
-
Yes I have.
The dll's are in folder packages
Hey,
I want to help port Lucene.net. I'm starting to work with it at work (in fact
my first job here was to port spellchecker from 3.5.3 to lucene.net 2.3.2
(please don't ask)) and I want to help make it better.
Questions:
Where would my effort best go?
What are we currently working on?
Can I
Where would my effort best go?
My advice is to play to strengths or work on things that seem interesting
or challenging to you.
Looking through the tickets on jira is a good place to start.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET
Look at recent threads on the mailing lists.
What Michael said.
I would say one thing you may want to do to do, in order to get
familiar with the project, is look over the upcoming 2.9.4g release
and try to evaluate it for correctness. This will expose you to a lot
of the important bits from the committer's perspective.
Do we have a standard of copy or tag of Java's version source that we're
doing a compare against? I only see the 3_1 and above in the tags.
I could attempt to do something similar I did with core and version 4 and
use beyond compare between 2.9.4 and 3.0.3 and make a list of files that
were
Stefan what did you use to check the eof of files for svn?
I'm setting up RAT on my local. Are there any other tools that you or ASF
recommends in general to validate releases?
- Michael
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote:
On 2012-01-23, Prescott
The source that this port was done from was the java release package.
If you go to the mirrors:
http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/lucene/java/ you'll see that they
have a 3.0.3 folder with a downloadable source zip. There are
additional thoughts I wrote down while working on it here:
We should definitely take some time and clean the code up. With the way the
voting is going in general, it'll be a week for me to beg and plead for the 3
IPMC votes we need to release 2.9.4g - so no rush.. Someone is working on the
CLS issue correct? I want to take another stab at that, but I
I think CLS compatibility, in terms of types, is less important than
naming. CLS compliance all while keeping the index format seems like
a pretty big challenge for us to do at this point. I had worked *very
little* on CLS compliance, it was mostly fixing TopDocs and some other
small name
