You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@lucenenet.apache.org by Michael Herndon <mh...@wickedsoftware.net> on 2011/09/21 05:56:49 UTC
[Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would
like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list**
Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not
create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in
source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started
by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net.
Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question to
the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for
each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also
create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the other
ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full.
Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages.
My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with
choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then
installing assemblies that you might never use.
Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band
project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental
features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org. This
was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has
a chance to voice their use cases or concerns.
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Brian Sayatovic <bs...@creditinfonet.com>.
I would love to use it. Unfortunately, my project is well underway and under tight deadlines, so we can't afford the disruption of switching to NuGet for Lucene, or any of the other libraries we use. However, once we release, I definitely want to embrace NuGet and would love for Lucene.NET to be available through NuGet.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mherndon@wickedsoftware.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:57 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list**
Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net.
Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the other
ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full.
Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages.
My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then installing assemblies that you might never use.
Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org. This was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has a chance to voice their use cases or concerns.
________________________________
Learn more about the products, services and technology solutions available from CIN Legal Data Services at: www.cinlegal.com<http://www.cinlegal.com>
This message may contain confidential / proprietary information from CIN Legal Data Service and Credit Infonet, Inc.. If you are not an intended recipient, please refrain from the disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this information. All such unauthorized actions are strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by e-mail at bsayatovic@creditinfonet.com and delete all copies of this material from any computer.
Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Kevin Miller <sc...@gmail.com>.
The granular approach can cause dependency issues as well. FubuMVC is
running into this with their granularity had to invent their own build chain
for "ripples" of changes.
I would say do two packages Lucene and Contrib and when one of the pieces of
Contrib gets awesome enough to warrant it's own package.
I look forward to official Lucene.Net packages.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Michael Herndon <
mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
> We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would
> like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list**
>
> Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not
> create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in
> source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started
> by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net.
>
> Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question to
> the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for
> each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
>
> The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also
> create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the
> other
> ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full.
>
> Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages.
>
> My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with
> choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then
> installing assemblies that you might never use.
>
>
> Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band
> project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental
> features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
>
>
> ** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org.
> This
> was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has
> a chance to voice their use cases or concerns.
>
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
>
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/microsoft_press/archive/2010/02/03/jeffrey-richter-e
xcerpt-2-from-clr-via-c-third-edition.aspx
Yes, this is the trick some obfuscators use.(they use also some scrambling
fxns to hide the code in resource)
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mherndon@wickedsoftware.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:36 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
@Digy, that could be done post build with ILMerge or build an additional
uber assembly that stores other assemblies as a resource.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/microsoft_press/archive/2010/02/03/jeffrey-richter-e
xcerpt-2-from-clr-via-c-third-edition.aspx
We can add the above to the build process if that would interest people.
To some nuget is just another disruption and to others its a godsend. Some
might say only hipsters would use nuget, others might say the cools kids
with iphones use nuget. (or android or wp7).
At the end of the day nuget or combining assemblies are just channels/ways
we can make it easier for various developers to consume & get their hands on
Lucene.Net. If anyone else has ideas along those lines and it can be
automated, post it in this thread.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even all contribs could be a single project/assembly. That way, users
could
> reference all contribs with a single assembly.
> I see no harm in putting a few KB pressure on RAM :)
>
> DIGY
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:32 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>
> While it may be a bit redundant, why couldn't there be an individual
> package for each piece of contrib and a "Lucene.Net Contrib (All)"
> package that drags them all down.
>
> That way users can grab just the bit they need, or if they just want
> to get the whole thing, grab the "All" package.
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Aaron Powell <me...@aaron-powell.com> wrote:
> > I'm going to vote +1 for granular.
> >
> > With the RC you could look at myget and have a Lucene.Net repository on
> there so people can go for unstable on myget, stables on nuget.
> >
> > Also, I came across this article which explains how to setup a build
> server to automatically push to nuget/ myget which could be useful to the
> maintainers:
> http://brendanforster.com/doing-the-build-server-dance-with-nuget.html
> >
> > Aaron Powell
> > MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
> >
> > http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell |
> Github | BitBucket
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 2:05 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
> >
> >
> >> Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question
> >> to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a
> >> package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
> >>
> >
> >
> > +1 Granular, we just need to be good about descriptions.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an
> >> out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new
> >> or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected
> release?
> >
> >
> > Having a package for the latest RC would probably be a good idea
> >
> -----
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1808 / Virus Database: 2085/4508 - Release Date: 09/20/11
>
>
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Michael Herndon <mh...@wickedsoftware.net>.
@Digy, that could be done post build with ILMerge or build an additional
uber assembly that stores other assemblies as a resource.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/microsoft_press/archive/2010/02/03/jeffrey-richter-excerpt-2-from-clr-via-c-third-edition.aspx
We can add the above to the build process if that would interest people.
To some nuget is just another disruption and to others its a godsend. Some
might say only hipsters would use nuget, others might say the cools kids
with iphones use nuget. (or android or wp7).
At the end of the day nuget or combining assemblies are just channels/ways
we can make it easier for various developers to consume & get their hands on
Lucene.Net. If anyone else has ideas along those lines and it can be
automated, post it in this thread.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even all contribs could be a single project/assembly. That way, users could
> reference all contribs with a single assembly.
> I see no harm in putting a few KB pressure on RAM :)
>
> DIGY
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:32 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>
> While it may be a bit redundant, why couldn't there be an individual
> package for each piece of contrib and a "Lucene.Net Contrib (All)"
> package that drags them all down.
>
> That way users can grab just the bit they need, or if they just want
> to get the whole thing, grab the "All" package.
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Aaron Powell <me...@aaron-powell.com> wrote:
> > I'm going to vote +1 for granular.
> >
> > With the RC you could look at myget and have a Lucene.Net repository on
> there so people can go for unstable on myget, stables on nuget.
> >
> > Also, I came across this article which explains how to setup a build
> server to automatically push to nuget/ myget which could be useful to the
> maintainers:
> http://brendanforster.com/doing-the-build-server-dance-with-nuget.html
> >
> > Aaron Powell
> > MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
> >
> > http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell |
> Github | BitBucket
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 2:05 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
> >
> >
> >> Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question
> >> to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a
> >> package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
> >>
> >
> >
> > +1 Granular, we just need to be good about descriptions.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an
> >> out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new
> >> or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected
> release?
> >
> >
> > Having a package for the latest RC would probably be a good idea
> >
> -----
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1808 / Virus Database: 2085/4508 - Release Date: 09/20/11
>
>
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
Even all contribs could be a single project/assembly. That way, users could reference all contribs with a single assembly.
I see no harm in putting a few KB pressure on RAM :)
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:32 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
While it may be a bit redundant, why couldn't there be an individual
package for each piece of contrib and a "Lucene.Net Contrib (All)"
package that drags them all down.
That way users can grab just the bit they need, or if they just want
to get the whole thing, grab the "All" package.
Thanks,
Troy
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Aaron Powell <me...@aaron-powell.com> wrote:
> I'm going to vote +1 for granular.
>
> With the RC you could look at myget and have a Lucene.Net repository on there so people can go for unstable on myget, stables on nuget.
>
> Also, I came across this article which explains how to setup a build server to automatically push to nuget/ myget which could be useful to the maintainers: http://brendanforster.com/doing-the-build-server-dance-with-nuget.html
>
> Aaron Powell
> MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
>
> http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 2:05 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>
>
>> Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question
>> to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a
>> package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
>>
>
>
> +1 Granular, we just need to be good about descriptions.
>
>
>>
>> Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an
>> out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new
>> or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
>
>
> Having a package for the latest RC would probably be a good idea
>
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1808 / Virus Database: 2085/4508 - Release Date: 09/20/11
Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Michael Herndon <mh...@wickedsoftware.net>.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While it may be a bit redundant, why couldn't there be an individual
> package for each piece of contrib and a "Lucene.Net Contrib (All)"
> package that drags them all down.
>
> That way users can grab just the bit they need, or if they just want
> to get the whole thing, grab the "All" package.
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
That was the idea for the Lucene.Net-Essentials & Lucene.Net-Full packages.
"We can also create additional higher level packages which have dependencies
on the other ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full."
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Aaron Powell <me...@aaron-powell.com> wrote:
> > I'm going to vote +1 for granular.
> >
> > With the RC you could look at myget and have a Lucene.Net repository on
> there so people can go for unstable on myget, stables on nuget.
> >
> > Also, I came across this article which explains how to setup a build
> server to automatically push to nuget/ myget which could be useful to the
> maintainers:
> http://brendanforster.com/doing-the-build-server-dance-with-nuget.html
> >
> > Aaron Powell
> > MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
> >
> > http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell |
> Github | BitBucket
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 2:05 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
> >
> >
> >> Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question
> >> to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a
> >> package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
> >>
> >
> >
> > +1 Granular, we just need to be good about descriptions.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an
> >> out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new
> >> or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected
> release?
> >
> >
> > Having a package for the latest RC would probably be a good idea
> >
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>.
While it may be a bit redundant, why couldn't there be an individual
package for each piece of contrib and a "Lucene.Net Contrib (All)"
package that drags them all down.
That way users can grab just the bit they need, or if they just want
to get the whole thing, grab the "All" package.
Thanks,
Troy
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Aaron Powell <me...@aaron-powell.com> wrote:
> I'm going to vote +1 for granular.
>
> With the RC you could look at myget and have a Lucene.Net repository on there so people can go for unstable on myget, stables on nuget.
>
> Also, I came across this article which explains how to setup a build server to automatically push to nuget/ myget which could be useful to the maintainers: http://brendanforster.com/doing-the-build-server-dance-with-nuget.html
>
> Aaron Powell
> MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
>
> http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 2:05 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>
>
>> Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question
>> to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a
>> package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
>>
>
>
> +1 Granular, we just need to be good about descriptions.
>
>
>>
>> Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an
>> out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new
>> or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
>
>
> Having a package for the latest RC would probably be a good idea
>
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Aaron Powell <me...@aaron-powell.com>.
I'm going to vote +1 for granular.
With the RC you could look at myget and have a Lucene.Net repository on there so people can go for unstable on myget, stables on nuget.
Also, I came across this article which explains how to setup a build server to automatically push to nuget/ myget which could be useful to the maintainers: http://brendanforster.com/doing-the-build-server-dance-with-nuget.html
Aaron Powell
MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket
-----Original Message-----
From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2011 2:05 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
> Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question
> to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a
> package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
>
+1 Granular, we just need to be good about descriptions.
>
> Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an
> out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new
> or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
Having a package for the latest RC would probably be a good idea
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
> Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question to
> the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for
> each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
>
+1 Granular, we just need to be good about descriptions.
>
> Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band
> project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental
> features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
Having a package for the latest RC would probably be a good idea
Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
Use a Lucene.Net core package for the core, and separate packages for each
contrib. That makes the most sense, and that is how most projects work. This
is also how Java Lucene does.
Don't create a nightly nuget package - nuget should only be used for
distribution packages
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Michael Herndon <
mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
> We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would
> like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list**
>
> Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not
> create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in
> source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started
> by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net.
>
> Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question to
> the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for
> each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
>
> The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also
> create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the
> other
> ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full.
>
> Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages.
>
> My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with
> choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then
> installing assemblies that you might never use.
>
>
> Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band
> project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental
> features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
>
>
> ** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org.
> This
> was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has
> a chance to voice their use cases or concerns.
>
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Brian Sayatovic <bs...@creditinfonet.com>.
I would love to use it. Unfortunately, my project is well underway and under tight deadlines, so we can't afford the disruption of switching to NuGet for Lucene, or any of the other libraries we use. However, once we release, I definitely want to embrace NuGet and would love for Lucene.NET to be available through NuGet.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mherndon@wickedsoftware.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:57 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list**
Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net.
Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the other
ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full.
Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages.
My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then installing assemblies that you might never use.
Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org. This was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has a chance to voice their use cases or concerns.
________________________________
Learn more about the products, services and technology solutions available from CIN Legal Data Services at: www.cinlegal.com<http://www.cinlegal.com>
This message may contain confidential / proprietary information from CIN Legal Data Service and Credit Infonet, Inc.. If you are not an intended recipient, please refrain from the disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this information. All such unauthorized actions are strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by e-mail at bsayatovic@creditinfonet.com and delete all copies of this material from any computer.
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by "Granroth, Neal V." <ne...@thermofisher.com>.
Say what? There's no personalities involved here.
It's simple, anything that comes between me and the source is unnecessary and just gets in the way of deploying and using Lucene.NET
- Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:07 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Michael - Could be wrong, but I think Nick might have gotten you
confused with Neal.
Regardless, I completely agree with everything you just said.
And, Yay for NuGet! Package management is the bomb.
-T
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Michael Herndon
<mh...@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
> Nick,
>
> The last e-mail was out of line and out of context. If anything, emails like
> that can push people into emotional or motivational apathy towards working
> on a project.
>
> 1) Lucene.Net will be getting nuget packages. People can hate on it,
> grumble, or not use it, but its a viable distribution vehicle. Its going in.
> This thread was to gather feedback on how people that would use it, see
> themselves using it.
>
> 2) Others might want alternatives to nuget that have not been provided yet.
> We should be open to providing distribution alternatives if enough people
> warrant it. Its not apathetic or impassive to think to that there might be
> more than one way to distribute releases.
>
> 3) Attack problems. Not people. If you believe a person is the problem, take
> the issue up with them offline. Those kinds of things are better face to
> face or through a phone call, or an exceptionally clear e-mail. Its way too
> easy for people to read into things too much or take things out of context
> in an e-mail.
>
> Attacking people also distracts people from focusing on the actual issue and
> prevents any actually logic or reason or sound argument from being heard.
> Its a good way to alienate people that you should actually be trying to
> persuade.
>
> 4) If I was actually apathetic and severely short sighted, I would not be
> spending my own vacation time this weekend automating nuget packages with
> the build scripts for Lucene.Net or experimenting Portable Library Tools for
> Lucene.Net 4.x to see if we can get it working on mobile. Nor would I have
> spent my last 4 day weekend setting up jenkins and local builds of
> Lucene.Net. Or put in the hours today to make sure the build scripts
> are granular enough to implement the smaller packages.
>
> 5) If you feel so passionately about all this, why not work towards being a
> contributor or committer and lead by example ?
>
>
> - Michael
>
>
>
> Since I'm the one implementing Nuget into the build process and I have not
> played with the nuget server or creating a package, it just seem wise to
> gather feedback on how people saw themselves using the contrib packages.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] <
> casperOne@caspershouse.com> wrote:
>
>> With all due respect, it's myopic opinions like yours and Michael's (his
>> leans more towards apathy) which will harm the ability to get the project
>> into the hands of people.
>>
>> I think (hope?) it can be agreed upon that the more that people are aware
>> of
>> Lucene.NET, the better it is for the project in general, and most
>> importantly, the more potential that you have that someone will *contribute
>> back* to it (and given what Lucene.NET has gone through in the past year,
>> it
>> desperately needs that participation).
>>
>> The fact of the matter is that Nuget puts packages in the hands of .NET
>> developers, that leads to exposure and regardless of personal opinions on
>> whether or not they *like* Nuget, it can't be denied that it's an
>> *extremely* popular way to get libraries into people's projects.
>>
>> If you want to quibble over the actual numbers (and the definition of
>> "extremely popular") then that's fine, but here are the numbers you want:
>>
>> http://stats.nuget.org/
>>
>> If you want to just tell that audience to take a leap, that's fine, but I
>> think it would be foolish to do so otherwise.
>>
>> Additionally, given that Lucene.NET is already on Nuget, isn't there *any*
>> concern that there isn't an official distro? Aren't you concerned about
>> the
>> integrity of the brand that so many of you fought to keep alive over the
>> past year? There's no guarantee that what's on Nuget will be the official
>> releases/builds that come out of this project, and I'm a little surprised
>> there isn't more concern over that aspect either.
>>
>> Just my $0.02
>>
>> - Nick
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:06 PM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>>
>> I am not against it, but personally think it as a toy.
>> I am from the generation where people used vi to write codes.
>>
>> DIGY
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Aaron Powell [mailto:me@aaron-powell.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:56 AM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>>
>> Any particular reason you guys are not interested in NuGet?
>>
>> Aaron Powell
>> MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
>>
>> http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell |
>> Github | BitBucket
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011 7:42 AM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>>
>> Sorry, but I feel the same as Neal.
>>
>> DIGY
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:08 PM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>>
>> No interest in Nuget whatsoever.
>>
>> - Neal
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mherndon@wickedsoftware.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:57 PM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>>
>> We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would
>> like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list**
>>
>> Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not
>> create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in
>> source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started
>> by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net.
>>
>> Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question to
>> the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for
>> each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
>>
>> The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also
>> create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the
>> other
>> ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full.
>>
>> Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages.
>>
>> My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with
>> choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then
>> installing assemblies that you might never use.
>>
>>
>> Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band
>> project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental
>> features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
>>
>>
>> ** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org.
>> This
>> was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has
>> a chance to voice their use cases or concerns.
>> -----
>>
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>.
Michael - Could be wrong, but I think Nick might have gotten you
confused with Neal.
Regardless, I completely agree with everything you just said.
And, Yay for NuGet! Package management is the bomb.
-T
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Michael Herndon
<mh...@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
> Nick,
>
> The last e-mail was out of line and out of context. If anything, emails like
> that can push people into emotional or motivational apathy towards working
> on a project.
>
> 1) Lucene.Net will be getting nuget packages. People can hate on it,
> grumble, or not use it, but its a viable distribution vehicle. Its going in.
> This thread was to gather feedback on how people that would use it, see
> themselves using it.
>
> 2) Others might want alternatives to nuget that have not been provided yet.
> We should be open to providing distribution alternatives if enough people
> warrant it. Its not apathetic or impassive to think to that there might be
> more than one way to distribute releases.
>
> 3) Attack problems. Not people. If you believe a person is the problem, take
> the issue up with them offline. Those kinds of things are better face to
> face or through a phone call, or an exceptionally clear e-mail. Its way too
> easy for people to read into things too much or take things out of context
> in an e-mail.
>
> Attacking people also distracts people from focusing on the actual issue and
> prevents any actually logic or reason or sound argument from being heard.
> Its a good way to alienate people that you should actually be trying to
> persuade.
>
> 4) If I was actually apathetic and severely short sighted, I would not be
> spending my own vacation time this weekend automating nuget packages with
> the build scripts for Lucene.Net or experimenting Portable Library Tools for
> Lucene.Net 4.x to see if we can get it working on mobile. Nor would I have
> spent my last 4 day weekend setting up jenkins and local builds of
> Lucene.Net. Or put in the hours today to make sure the build scripts
> are granular enough to implement the smaller packages.
>
> 5) If you feel so passionately about all this, why not work towards being a
> contributor or committer and lead by example ?
>
>
> - Michael
>
>
>
> Since I'm the one implementing Nuget into the build process and I have not
> played with the nuget server or creating a package, it just seem wise to
> gather feedback on how people saw themselves using the contrib packages.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] <
> casperOne@caspershouse.com> wrote:
>
>> With all due respect, it's myopic opinions like yours and Michael's (his
>> leans more towards apathy) which will harm the ability to get the project
>> into the hands of people.
>>
>> I think (hope?) it can be agreed upon that the more that people are aware
>> of
>> Lucene.NET, the better it is for the project in general, and most
>> importantly, the more potential that you have that someone will *contribute
>> back* to it (and given what Lucene.NET has gone through in the past year,
>> it
>> desperately needs that participation).
>>
>> The fact of the matter is that Nuget puts packages in the hands of .NET
>> developers, that leads to exposure and regardless of personal opinions on
>> whether or not they *like* Nuget, it can't be denied that it's an
>> *extremely* popular way to get libraries into people's projects.
>>
>> If you want to quibble over the actual numbers (and the definition of
>> "extremely popular") then that's fine, but here are the numbers you want:
>>
>> http://stats.nuget.org/
>>
>> If you want to just tell that audience to take a leap, that's fine, but I
>> think it would be foolish to do so otherwise.
>>
>> Additionally, given that Lucene.NET is already on Nuget, isn't there *any*
>> concern that there isn't an official distro? Aren't you concerned about
>> the
>> integrity of the brand that so many of you fought to keep alive over the
>> past year? There's no guarantee that what's on Nuget will be the official
>> releases/builds that come out of this project, and I'm a little surprised
>> there isn't more concern over that aspect either.
>>
>> Just my $0.02
>>
>> - Nick
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:06 PM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>>
>> I am not against it, but personally think it as a toy.
>> I am from the generation where people used vi to write codes.
>>
>> DIGY
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Aaron Powell [mailto:me@aaron-powell.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:56 AM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>>
>> Any particular reason you guys are not interested in NuGet?
>>
>> Aaron Powell
>> MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
>>
>> http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell |
>> Github | BitBucket
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011 7:42 AM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>>
>> Sorry, but I feel the same as Neal.
>>
>> DIGY
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:08 PM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>>
>> No interest in Nuget whatsoever.
>>
>> - Neal
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mherndon@wickedsoftware.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:57 PM
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>>
>> We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would
>> like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list**
>>
>> Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not
>> create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in
>> source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started
>> by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net.
>>
>> Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question to
>> the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for
>> each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
>>
>> The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also
>> create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the
>> other
>> ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full.
>>
>> Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages.
>>
>> My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with
>> choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then
>> installing assemblies that you might never use.
>>
>>
>> Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band
>> project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental
>> features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
>>
>>
>> ** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org.
>> This
>> was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has
>> a chance to voice their use cases or concerns.
>> -----
>>
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Michael Herndon <mh...@wickedsoftware.net>.
Nick,
The last e-mail was out of line and out of context. If anything, emails like
that can push people into emotional or motivational apathy towards working
on a project.
1) Lucene.Net will be getting nuget packages. People can hate on it,
grumble, or not use it, but its a viable distribution vehicle. Its going in.
This thread was to gather feedback on how people that would use it, see
themselves using it.
2) Others might want alternatives to nuget that have not been provided yet.
We should be open to providing distribution alternatives if enough people
warrant it. Its not apathetic or impassive to think to that there might be
more than one way to distribute releases.
3) Attack problems. Not people. If you believe a person is the problem, take
the issue up with them offline. Those kinds of things are better face to
face or through a phone call, or an exceptionally clear e-mail. Its way too
easy for people to read into things too much or take things out of context
in an e-mail.
Attacking people also distracts people from focusing on the actual issue and
prevents any actually logic or reason or sound argument from being heard.
Its a good way to alienate people that you should actually be trying to
persuade.
4) If I was actually apathetic and severely short sighted, I would not be
spending my own vacation time this weekend automating nuget packages with
the build scripts for Lucene.Net or experimenting Portable Library Tools for
Lucene.Net 4.x to see if we can get it working on mobile. Nor would I have
spent my last 4 day weekend setting up jenkins and local builds of
Lucene.Net. Or put in the hours today to make sure the build scripts
are granular enough to implement the smaller packages.
5) If you feel so passionately about all this, why not work towards being a
contributor or committer and lead by example ?
- Michael
Since I'm the one implementing Nuget into the build process and I have not
played with the nuget server or creating a package, it just seem wise to
gather feedback on how people saw themselves using the contrib packages.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] <
casperOne@caspershouse.com> wrote:
> With all due respect, it's myopic opinions like yours and Michael's (his
> leans more towards apathy) which will harm the ability to get the project
> into the hands of people.
>
> I think (hope?) it can be agreed upon that the more that people are aware
> of
> Lucene.NET, the better it is for the project in general, and most
> importantly, the more potential that you have that someone will *contribute
> back* to it (and given what Lucene.NET has gone through in the past year,
> it
> desperately needs that participation).
>
> The fact of the matter is that Nuget puts packages in the hands of .NET
> developers, that leads to exposure and regardless of personal opinions on
> whether or not they *like* Nuget, it can't be denied that it's an
> *extremely* popular way to get libraries into people's projects.
>
> If you want to quibble over the actual numbers (and the definition of
> "extremely popular") then that's fine, but here are the numbers you want:
>
> http://stats.nuget.org/
>
> If you want to just tell that audience to take a leap, that's fine, but I
> think it would be foolish to do so otherwise.
>
> Additionally, given that Lucene.NET is already on Nuget, isn't there *any*
> concern that there isn't an official distro? Aren't you concerned about
> the
> integrity of the brand that so many of you fought to keep alive over the
> past year? There's no guarantee that what's on Nuget will be the official
> releases/builds that come out of this project, and I'm a little surprised
> there isn't more concern over that aspect either.
>
> Just my $0.02
>
> - Nick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:06 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>
> I am not against it, but personally think it as a toy.
> I am from the generation where people used vi to write codes.
>
> DIGY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Powell [mailto:me@aaron-powell.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:56 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>
> Any particular reason you guys are not interested in NuGet?
>
> Aaron Powell
> MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
>
> http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell |
> Github | BitBucket
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011 7:42 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>
> Sorry, but I feel the same as Neal.
>
> DIGY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:08 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>
> No interest in Nuget whatsoever.
>
> - Neal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mherndon@wickedsoftware.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:57 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
>
> We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would
> like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list**
>
> Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not
> create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in
> source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started
> by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net.
>
> Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question to
> the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for
> each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
>
> The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also
> create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the
> other
> ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full.
>
> Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages.
>
> My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with
> choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then
> installing assemblies that you might never use.
>
>
> Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band
> project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental
> features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
>
>
> ** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org.
> This
> was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has
> a chance to voice their use cases or concerns.
> -----
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
>
> -----
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
>
>
>
>
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by "Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <ca...@caspershouse.com>.
With all due respect, it's myopic opinions like yours and Michael's (his
leans more towards apathy) which will harm the ability to get the project
into the hands of people.
I think (hope?) it can be agreed upon that the more that people are aware of
Lucene.NET, the better it is for the project in general, and most
importantly, the more potential that you have that someone will *contribute
back* to it (and given what Lucene.NET has gone through in the past year, it
desperately needs that participation).
The fact of the matter is that Nuget puts packages in the hands of .NET
developers, that leads to exposure and regardless of personal opinions on
whether or not they *like* Nuget, it can't be denied that it's an
*extremely* popular way to get libraries into people's projects.
If you want to quibble over the actual numbers (and the definition of
"extremely popular") then that's fine, but here are the numbers you want:
http://stats.nuget.org/
If you want to just tell that audience to take a leap, that's fine, but I
think it would be foolish to do so otherwise.
Additionally, given that Lucene.NET is already on Nuget, isn't there *any*
concern that there isn't an official distro? Aren't you concerned about the
integrity of the brand that so many of you fought to keep alive over the
past year? There's no guarantee that what's on Nuget will be the official
releases/builds that come out of this project, and I'm a little surprised
there isn't more concern over that aspect either.
Just my $0.02
- Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:06 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
I am not against it, but personally think it as a toy.
I am from the generation where people used vi to write codes.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Powell [mailto:me@aaron-powell.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:56 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Any particular reason you guys are not interested in NuGet?
Aaron Powell
MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell |
Github | BitBucket
-----Original Message-----
From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011 7:42 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Sorry, but I feel the same as Neal.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:08 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
No interest in Nuget whatsoever.
- Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mherndon@wickedsoftware.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:57 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would
like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list**
Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not
create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in
source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started
by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net.
Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question to
the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for
each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also
create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the other
ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full.
Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages.
My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with
choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then
installing assemblies that you might never use.
Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band
project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental
features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org. This
was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has
a chance to voice their use cases or concerns.
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
I am not against it, but personally think it as a toy.
I am from the generation where people used vi to write codes.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Powell [mailto:me@aaron-powell.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:56 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Any particular reason you guys are not interested in NuGet?
Aaron Powell
MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell |
Github | BitBucket
-----Original Message-----
From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011 7:42 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Sorry, but I feel the same as Neal.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:08 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
No interest in Nuget whatsoever.
- Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mherndon@wickedsoftware.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:57 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would
like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list**
Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not
create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in
source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started
by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net.
Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question to
the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for
each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also
create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the other
ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full.
Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages.
My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with
choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then
installing assemblies that you might never use.
Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band
project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental
features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org. This
was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has
a chance to voice their use cases or concerns.
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Aaron Powell <me...@aaron-powell.com>.
Any particular reason you guys are not interested in NuGet?
Aaron Powell
MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket
-----Original Message-----
From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011 7:42 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Sorry, but I feel the same as Neal.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:08 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
No interest in Nuget whatsoever.
- Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mherndon@wickedsoftware.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:57 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list**
Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net.
Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question to the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the other
ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full.
Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages.
My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then installing assemblies that you might never use.
Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org. This was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has a chance to voice their use cases or concerns.
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
Sorry, but I feel the same as Neal.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:08 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
No interest in Nuget whatsoever.
- Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mherndon@wickedsoftware.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:57 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would
like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list**
Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not
create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in
source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started
by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net.
Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question to
the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for
each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also
create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the other
ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full.
Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages.
My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with
choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then
installing assemblies that you might never use.
Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band
project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental
features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org. This
was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has
a chance to voice their use cases or concerns.
-----
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1809 / Virus Database: 2085/4510 - Release Date: 09/21/11
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by "Granroth, Neal V." <ne...@thermofisher.com>.
No interest in Nuget whatsoever.
- Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mherndon@wickedsoftware.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:57 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would
like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list**
Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not
create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in
source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started
by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net.
Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question to
the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for
each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also
create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the other
ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full.
Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages.
My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with
choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then
installing assemblies that you might never use.
Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band
project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental
features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org. This
was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has
a chance to voice their use cases or concerns.
RE: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Richard Wilde <ri...@wildesoft.net>.
+1 For this
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Swain [mailto:dan.swain@gmail.com]
Sent: 21 September 2011 13:22
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
I think I'd like to stick with 2 packages
Lucene.net Core
Lucene.net Contrib
Just because I think it's nice and simple. I would say that any contrib
parts that get really big or popular either to split out into their own
package or maybe added to the core package?
I'm also in favour of a nightly package and experimental packages.
thanks
Dan Swain
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Michael Herndon <
mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
> We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would
> like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list**
>
> Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not
> create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in
> source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else
started
> by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net.
>
> Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question to
> the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for
> each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
>
> The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also
> create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the
> other
> ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full.
>
> Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages.
>
> My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with
> choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then
> installing assemblies that you might never use.
>
>
> Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band
> project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental
> features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
>
>
> ** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org.
> This
> was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists
has
> a chance to voice their use cases or concerns.
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] Nuget, Lucene.Net, and Your Thoughts
Posted by Dan Swain <da...@gmail.com>.
I think I'd like to stick with 2 packages
Lucene.net Core
Lucene.net Contrib
Just because I think it's nice and simple. I would say that any contrib
parts that get really big or popular either to split out into their own
package or maybe added to the core package?
I'm also in favour of a nightly package and experimental packages.
thanks
Dan Swain
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Michael Herndon <
mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
> We're taking a quick poll over the next few days to see how people would
> like use Lucene.Net through Nuget on the developers mailing list**
>
> Currently version 2.9.2 is hosted on nuget.org, but that package was not
> create by the project maintainers, thus nuget is not currently set up in
> source. Going forward, we would like to continue what someone else started
> by creating nuget packages for Lucene.Net.
>
> Right now there are two packages: Lucene & Lucene.Contrib. My question to
> the community is do you wish to finer grain packages, i.e. a package for
> each contrib project or continue to keep it simple.
>
> The granular approach will let you use only what you need. We can also
> create additional higher level packages which have dependencies on the
> other
> ones. Possibly a Lucene.Net-Essentials and Lucene.Net-Full.
>
> Or we can keep it simple and continue with only two packages.
>
> My concerns are that the granular approach might overwhelm people with
> choice. The simple choice might be considered bloat for importing and then
> installing assemblies that you might never use.
>
>
> Another topic to converse about is would you like to see an out-of-band
> project nuget feed for nightly builds, branches with new or experimental
> features, or stable code snapshots for a projected release?
>
>
> ** when you post, please respond to lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org.
> This
> was posted to both lists to make sure everyone subscribed to both lists has
> a chance to voice their use cases or concerns.
>