lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Currens <currens.ch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
Date Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:51:36 GMT
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