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 "lucene"by 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file that clearly marks it is obsolete if not possible to remove the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"

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 "lucene"by 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"    

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> 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 "lucene"by 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"

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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 "lucene"by 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"    

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 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 "lucene"by 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"
>

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 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 "lucene"by 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"

So, I created:

   - *Lucene.Net.Contrib*
   - *Lucene.Net.Sample*

Contacted the owner of *Lucene.Contrib* and *Lucene.net.* They would
hopefully grant me ownership of the 2 pkgs.
Got granted ownership to *Lucene *(which is the only package that is
actually downloaded and referenced to by other packages).

My plan would be to have these config:

   - 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)
   - 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 can grant ownership right to other people so someone else can work on it
if I get hit by a bus.
Prescott and Michael?
Simone

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Simone Chiaretta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > 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 "lucene"by 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

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"

> - 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 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 <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > 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 "lucene"by 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
> >> > >
> >> > > --
>

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> > - 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 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 <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> > > 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 "lucene"by 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

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"

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>>
>> > - 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 <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > 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 <
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >> >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >> > > 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 "lucene"by 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)

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"

there is actually registered for the lucene.net account for nuget.org.  I'd
suggest we use that one since the committers have access the credentials
stored for the account.

If others are ok with Simone taking lead on this, I can forward those
credentials to him.

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > - 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 <
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > > 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 <
> >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > >> >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > >> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > >> > > 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:

You mean a different impersonal Nuget account?
From what I've seen also used in MS pkgs devs have their in accounts but pkgs have multiple owners.
But if you want we can also go with the Lucene.net team account.
Simo

---
Simone Chiaretta
@simonech
Sent from a tablet

On 01/dic/2011, at 18:49, Michael Herndon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> there is actually registered for the lucene.net account for nuget.org.  I'd
> suggest we use that one since the committers have access the credentials
> stored for the account.
>
> If others are ok with Simone taking lead on this, I can forward those
> credentials to him.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 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 <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> - 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 <
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dears,
>>>>>>>>

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

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.
> 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.
> But if you want we can also go with the Lucene.net team account.
> Simo
>
>

Mine below

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Michael Herndon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 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"

Added *pnasser* to all the nuget pkgs:

Lucene
Lucene.Contrib
Lucene.Net.All
Lucene.Net.Sample
Lucene.Net.Contrib

Any other nuget account I have to add as owner?

The dependency graph I'm doing is (shown inverted here)
   - Lucene.net (strongly named assemby from apache site)
   - Lucene (empty pkg with readme)
      - Lucene.net.contrib (lucene contrib built on my machine, unless
      there is already an official build somewhere)
         - Lucene.contrib (empty pkg with readme)
      - Lucene.net.sample (sample pkg, not sure if something already exists)

Lucene.net.all just a convenient way to get core, contrib and samples (just
empty pkg with dependencies on the 2 pkgs)

If everyone is ok with that I'll build the pkgs and publish them online.

Let me know
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Simone Chiaretta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Mine below
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Michael Herndon <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > 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"
>

--
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"

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Mine below
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Michael Herndon <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 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"
>

Good... no need to have another key...
Simo

---
Simone Chiaretta
@simonech
Sent from a tablet

On 01/dic/2011, at 21:04, Michael Herndon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> wrote:
>
>> Mine below
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Michael Herndon <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> 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"
>>

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 "lucene"by 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

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 "lucene"by 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"

I was about to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 "lucene"by 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"    

Sure, will contact Phil

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> I was about to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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 "lucene"by 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"

Thanks!
----------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:28:43 +0100
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.net nuget
>
> Sure, will contact Phil
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> >
> > I was about to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 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 "lucene"by 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"    

Mail sent... let's see what he answers.

Simone

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Simone Chiaretta <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Sure, will contact Phil
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>>
>> I was about to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 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 "lucene"by 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"

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 <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>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 "lucene"by 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"

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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>>
>> > - 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 <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > 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 <
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >> >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >> > > 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 "lucene"by Apache SF relased
>> on
>> > >> jan
>> > >> > > 11 frozen on version 2.9.2.2

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"

Ok, so .net 4 for the moment
Simo

---
Simone Chiaretta
@simonech
Sent from a tablet

On 01/dic/2011, at 18:09, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> - 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 <
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> 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 <
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>

Userid: pnasser

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Simone Chiaretta
Sent: 12/1/2011 9:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> > - 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 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 <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> > > 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 "lucene"by 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:

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"

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 <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 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 <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Mine below
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Michael Herndon <
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>>> 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

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"

>
> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> 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 <
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Mine below
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Michael Herndon <
> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
> >> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> You mean a different impersonal Nuget account?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 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 <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> 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.

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"

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 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 <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Good... no need to have another key...
> > > >> Simo
> > > >>
> > > >> ---
> > > >> Simone Chiaretta
> > > >> @simonech
> > > >> Sent from a tablet

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > 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 <
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

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"

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > > 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

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"