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 Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:27:28 GMT

I could only ever get one test to fail - that has been fixed (just re-ran all tests). The
other tests I believe others have mentioned they are fixed.

 

~P

----------------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 21:44:23 +0300
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: itamar@code972.com
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > CLS Compliance 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. 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
> > >
> > > 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
> > > >>
> > > >> 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