lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
Date Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:29:38 GMT

Have at it.

----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a little bit in that branch, and
> see what kind of progress I can make, since I have some time right now.
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > I made some progress on 480 - checked into the 3.5 branch, there is more
> > work to be done we could potentially move it to 3.0.3, but I put it into
> > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to having this released, and adding
> > those changes would add a fair amount of change so close to the release. I
> > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm mostly just doing
> > administrative work for the next two weeks though - I have a few things I
> > have to take care of
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > > The tests should all be fine now. We had a contributer, Luc Vanlerberghe,
> > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting these last few difficult bugs out
> > of
> > > the way. He's responsible for half or more of the failing tests from
> > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as LUCENE-493, with the culture
> > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no longer get any culture issues,
> > > since the tests that are marked as culture sensitive are now all run in
> > all
> > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > >
> > > I think CLS compliance is still important and should be handled. What
> > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott had done some work on this and
> > I
> > > also know this was requested by several in the community. I would love to
> > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be able to pick up where anyone
> > had
> > > left off or take part of it, if they don't have time to work on it. In
> > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it is pretty much complete. I
> > think
> > > I've looked several times at it to confirm most/all methods have been
> > > converted, so this week I'll do a final check and close it out.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Christopher
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon Svensson <sisve@devhost.se>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The tests that failed when using culture=sv-se seems fixed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> What's the status on the failing tests we had?
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > >> >wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some work, but I'm good on this,
we
> > can
> > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> CLS Compliance https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446>.
> > > >>> Are
> > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There are still a good number of issues
> > > >>> where,
> > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and volatile are out of scope
imo).
> > In a
> > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses some obsolete methods and we
have a
> > lot
> > > >>> of
> > > >>> variable declared but never used warnings (mentally, I treat most
> > warning
> > > >>> as an error)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> GetX/SetX - https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470>.
> > > >>> I think
> > > >>> much of this has been removed, there are probably some pieces
that
> > left
> > > >>> (and we have a difference of opinion in the group as well).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I really think the only outstanding issue is the CLS compliance
one,
> > the
> > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS compliance we have to ask if
we've
> > > >>> done
> > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more is needed. I personally would
> > like to
> > > >>> see us make any API changes now, with the 3.0.3 release, but if
we
> > are
> > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ~P
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ------------------------------**----------
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37 -0700
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the packaging/filesystem structure
in
> > the
> > > >>>> releases, the structure is a little of both (ours vs Apache's)...
> > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of the Apache projects to see
how
> > they
> > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a structure that was very
similar
> > but
> > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed. So, it's informed by the
> > organically
> > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> -T
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we were using Nant.
> > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release structure". I figured a
little out
> > this
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and .dll files into separate
> > directories. The
> > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki was actually pretty helpful.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be great
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> ~P
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21 -0400
> > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > >>>>>> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious one, is listed only
because it's
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends tied up. I'll hopefully
have time to
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I did a quick search
for 'public *
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual methods - perhaps a few to
replace
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is important, but
there's no way we
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> this done quickly. The current state of this issue is that
all of
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> names of public members are now compliant. There are a few
things
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> that
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte (particularly those related to the
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected or internal*
fields (some with
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> public
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one will be appreciated the most.
My
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on the amount of CLS compliance
to
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> this release, and push the rest into 3.5.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS compliant issues. the sbyte
stuff will run
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> into
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting (I ran into this issue when
trying
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> to do
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if we can't get rid of the
easier
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I would not try getting rid of
sbyte or
> > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release. It's going to take
some serious
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we going to add this
code (not present
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the community desire
for this in 3.5.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is related to builds
being output in
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do this for this release?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last weekend - I'm terrible
with Nant, so I
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to have, but I don't think I'll
figure
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe make the adjustment, he
knows
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> these
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to look into it, but I don't
call
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> this a
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it or we don't when the rest
is done.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso shots, anything
is possible.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this. Is there an official
apache
> > release
> > > >>>>>> structure or this just our* apache release structure
that we are
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> using?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and use that to model the structure
> > you
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> guys
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> want?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build scripts are a pita
in general.
> > only
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> reason
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> we're using this over powershell or a scripting language is
that
> > mono
> > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs have it already installed.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time documenting it so that others
can work
> > on
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> it and
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
 		 	   		  
Mime
View raw message