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 Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:04:53 GMT
I've got resharper and can help with that if you'd like to coordinate it.
 I can take a one or some of the contrib projects or part of the main
library, or *shudder* the any of the test libraries.  The code has needed
come cleaning up for a while and some of the clean up work is an
optimization some levels, so I'm definitely okay with spending some time
doing that.  I'm okay with waiting longer as long as something is getting
done.


Thanks,
Christopher

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>wrote:

> 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