lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
Date Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:00:08 GMT
The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper and trying
to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly, removing
unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files left.

I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some recent
updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a bit more
time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it).

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:

> Itamar,
>
> Where do we stand on the clean up now?  Is there anything in particular
> that you're doing that you'd like help with?  I have some free time today
> and am eager to get this version released.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Christopher
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > Alright, I'll hold off a bit.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > > Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and would want to
> > > complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption issue we
> raised.
> > > I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly do all that,
> but
> > > I'll keep you posted.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with the cls issues at
> > > > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll with a release. If
> > people
> > > > could please take some time to run all the test as well as whatever
> > other
> > > > tests they might run. We've had some issues with tests only happening
> > on
> > > > some systems so I want to make sure we have those bases covered.
> Unless
> > > > there is anything else that should be done, I'll leave every one a
> > week to
> > > > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk and cut a release
> > with
> > > > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > I can set a different build target, but I can't set the actual
> > framework
> > > > to
> > > > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations. On top of that,
> > 3.5
> > > > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done automatically in
> > .NET 4
> > > > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it automatically?). I did kinda
> get
> > it
> > > > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of 4.0 in Debug and
> > > > Release
> > > > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5 configurations,
> > but
> > > > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by hand since visual
> > studio
> > > > > doesn't allow you to set different framework versions per
> > configuration,
> > > > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with references,
> since
> > both
> > > > > frameworks were being referenced.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project level? I created
a
> > > > different
> > > > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and Release still,
that
> > > > seemed to
> > > > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing something in your
> > > > explaination.
> > > > > > Good work though!
> > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've got it working, compiling and all test passing...The
only
> > > > caveat is
> > > > > > > that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target. It doesn't
> really
> > > > work
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > a project level, so you'd have to create two separate projects,
> > one
> > > > for
> > > > > > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I wrote a small
tool
> > that
> > > > > > creates
> > > > > > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions to work
against
> > the
> > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > framework. Anyone have experience with multi-targeting
like
> this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message