-RE: [Lucene.Net] Infrastructure Choices/Issues (was Re: [Lucene.Net] Graduation)
Prescott Nasser 2012-02-08, 23:41
Stefan, im looking into using the tarball approach to our docs. I attempted to update the website yesterday and I ended up running out of time waiting for the publish to happen.
In the meantime, you mentioned a roller set up for add - im not familiar with the term, but could you provide me a link or two to look into - getting a blog onto the front page would be fantastic.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Stefan Bodewig
Sent: 2/2/2012 9:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Lucene.Net] Infrastructure Choices/Issues (was Re: [Lucene.Net] Graduation)
On 2012-02-02, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
> I've seen that moving to a more "social" source control helps, like moving
> to git or mercurial. Lucene.net is still on Subversion, and that makes
> difficult for people to contribute sporadically.
There already is a git-mirror (of trunk) on github at
<https://github.com/apache/lucene.net> and I think it is possible to
arrange for github pull requests to go to the project's mailing list.
If there is any interest I can try to dig out the details.
But as with all contributions there is the bar of licensing the code to
the ASF, so for anything that is more than a few lines JIRA with the
simple checkbox is more effective.
Furthermore if the team wanted to go with git as primary SCM then
Lucene.Net could join the club of testers (if anybody volunteers to help
> Actually hosting the source on something like github would definitely
> help: but I think both solutions are against the rules of the ASF: no
> external tools allowed.
Not quite "no external tools" but certainly no external SCM. As for
other tools, the ASF prefers people to use what is here and help out if
this is not adequate.
> But what about a CI environment? with a public output?
<http://ci.apache.org/> with options of buildbot, Continuum and Jenkins.
There even are some builds for Lucene.Net, see
e.g. <https://builds.apache.org/job/Lucene.Net-Trunk-All-Nightly/> but
my understanding is the team isn't happy with the setup, yet.
Likely this is a case of missing communication.
> Also the CMS, from my understanding, is kind of difficult to work with.
Not the CMS per se, but the restriction to "CMS or static files", I
think. We'll need to find a better solution for the generated
documentation, that's true.
[OT: just stumbled upon
http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref.html#generated-docs which may provide a
solution (the "upload a tarball rather than use svn" approach).]
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What would you suggest?
> Having a blog on the site, and have posts on what's going on, plans for the
> future, to start discussions: I agree, probably the same thing already
> happen on this or the user ML, but they definitely have much bigger
> visibility than just something came straight from the '90s (the ML).
OK. Technically this could be done immediately. There is a Roller
instance set up for ASF projects and it should be possible to embed blog
content into the sity dynamically.