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 18:06:42 GMT

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