lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Currens <>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] 3.0.3
Date Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:03:29 GMT
I think CLS compatibility, in terms of types, is less important than
naming.  CLS compliance all while keeping the index format seems like
a pretty big challenge for us to do at this point.  I had worked *very
little* on CLS compliance, it was mostly fixing TopDocs and some other
small name changes.  I had also started working on implementing
IDisposable properly, and got a good start on that.  I've committed
the work I have done on those issues, so if you do want to do one of
them feel free to assign it to yourself, if you'd like.  There's a lot
of issues, though for 3.0.3 now, that would be nice to have worked on,
as well.


On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Prescott Nasser <> wrote:
> We should definitely take some time and clean the code up. With the way the voting is
going in general, it'll be a week for me to beg and plead for the 3 IPMC votes we need to
release 2.9.4g - so no rush.. Someone is working on the CLS issue correct? I want to take
another stab at that, but I don't want to overlap too much. I was thinking of fixing the bit
shifting crap I ran into last time.. ~P
>  > Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:30:34 -0800
>> From:
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 3.0.3
>> The source that this port was done from was the java release package.
>> If you go to the mirrors:
>> you'll see that they
>> have a 3.0.3 folder with a downloadable source zip.  There are
>> additional thoughts I wrote down while working on it here:
>> but I really need to go through it again and even see if its up to
>> date.
>> 3.0.3's entirety has already been ported to the trunk, except for
>> maybe the 7 files listed here:
>>  Contrib has *largely* been ported but is also missing a few
>> libraries.  There are few unit tests that need to be written for new
>> support classes, I think.  A lot of code cleanup can be done as well.
>> Sorry about the format of this email, kinda just going off the top of
>> my head.
>> Thanks,
>> Christopher
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Michael Herndon
>> <> wrote:
>> > Do we have a standard of copy or tag of Java's version source that we're
>> > doing a compare against?  I only see the 3_1 and above in the tags.
>> >
>> > I could attempt to do something similar I did with core and version 4 and
>> > use beyond compare between 2.9.4 and 3.0.3  and make a list of files that
>> > were touched and script out wiki links.  Or I could try to generate of
>> > beyond compare's diff reports and see how that stacks up and post to the
>> > above link.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Prescott Nasser <>wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I've updated the confluence page to hopefully give us some direction:
>> >>'d
think it's just easier if as you take down a Java Lucene Issue, you
>> >> create a JIRA issue for Lucene.Net and associate it with 3.0.3, rather than
>> >> me making a ton of issues. ~P

View raw message