Not to toss too much water on NAnt, but why not use MSBuild instead? That way you can use the existing core sln/project files, but still don't need VStudio. -----Original Message----- From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 1:00 PM To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Current Status/Plans for Lucene.Net 2.3 Sean, AFAIK, no one is working on that. I think that would be useful - it would encourage development by people who don't want to or are not able to use Visual Studio. Regarding test failures, I expect TestStressIndexing.TestStressIndexAndSearching(), TestSpans.TestSpanNearOrdered0[2-5](), and TestHugeRamFile.TestHugeFile() to fail. Where does your experience diverge? BTW, I don't believe there is an issue with the latter test. When I reduce the size of the file by a factor of 2 the test succeeds on my machines. I believe it is merely an "eating all your memory and virtual memory" issue. As I mentioned, previously - I'm investigating the tests listed above, but welcome any and all assistance. Thanks. On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Sean Carpenter wrote: > I was able to apply all of the suggested patches and I currently get 7 test > failures. I haven't had a chance to dig into them yet, but one thing that > took me some time was getting everything set up to build and run the tests. > I was thinking of contributing a NAnt build file that would make it easier > for people to get set up and running. > Is there any interest in that (or is someone already working on it)? > > Thanks, > Sean > > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Sean Carpenter >wrote: > > > Doug,Thanks for the update. I'll apply those patches this weekend and > see > > what I come up with. > > > > Sean > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Doug Sale wrote: > > > >> Sean, > >> > >> Currently, there are two people working on the 2.3.1 port - myself, and > >> DIGY. Neither of us are committers, but the understanding is that we > soon > >> will be. > >> > >> IMHO, there are 7 outstanding patches across 6 JIRA issues that should > be > >> applied to SVN HEAD: > >> LUCENENET-135 SupportClass.patch > >> LUCENENET-143 TestStressIndexing2.patch, FieldsReader.patch > >> LUCENENET-145 DocumentsWriter.patch > >> LUCENENET-146 SegmentTermPositionVector.patch > >> LUCENENET-152 SegmentInfos.patch > >> LUCENENET-155 SetUp.patch > >> > >> After applying said patches, there remain unit test failures in > >> TestStressIndexing.TestStressIndexAndSearching() (intermittent > exceptions) > >> and TestSpans.TestSpanNearOrdered0[2-4]() (2 search results' relevance > >> ranking are swapped). > >> > >> I am currently attempting to resolve these issues. Any and all > >> assistance, > >> however, is welcome. A first step would be to apply these patches to > the > >> SVN HEAD and verify that your test results match mine. > >> > >> Additionally, on most machines TestHugeRamFile.TestHugeFile() will fail > >> due > >> to a lack of physical memory (and might crash VS and/or your system). > >> This > >> can be alleviated by reducing the size requirement in the unit test. > >> > >> The current committers are responsible for reviewing these patches, > >> applying > >> them when worthy, and determining when the code is ready for release. > >> > >> Also - I have a local version of the code with the 2.3.2 changes ported, > >> ready-to-go, once the current batch of patches have been applied and the > >> remaining issues have been resolved. > >> > >> -Doug > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Sean Carpenter >> >wrote: > >> > >> > I am curious as to the current state of the 2.3.1 port. These doesn't > >> seem > >> > to be much activity on the dev list or in the JIRA, and there are > >> several > >> > outstanding patches in the JIRA. When I checked out the code this > >> morning > >> > and ran the tests, I got a bunch of failures and an exception that > >> caused > >> > NUnit to close. > >> > I'd really like to see Lucene.Net keep up with the Java version as we > >> have > >> > a > >> > couple of existing projects and a few new ones at work that utilize > >> Lucene. > >> > What can I do to help? Is there a way to get the current outstanding > >> > patches applied to the trunk so that we have a common base to work > from? > >> > I'm happy to work on patches for the outstanding test failures, once > >> it's > >> > easier to determine which ones are still outstanding. > >> > > >> > Any thoughts? > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Sean Carpenter > >> > > >> > > > > >