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: 3.0.3
Date Sun, 23 Sep 2012 09:06:15 GMT
Everything works great and as far as I'm concerned we are up for a release

That being said, the spatial module is still being worked on and much is
going to change until Lucene 4 will be released. We probably want to issue
another 3.0.3 release for the spatial module once significant changes are
made to it?

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>wrote:

> OK I'm doing with the porting work, and all tests pass but 1 in a certain
> circumstances. I'll send an email about this in a sec.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>wrote:
>
>> Only started working. will complete during the weekend
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Itamar - you happy with the commits? or do you need more time?
>>>  > From: geobmx540@hotmail.com
>>> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> > Subject: RE: 3.0.3
>>> > Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:51:07 -0700
>>> >
>>> > Alright, sorry - just got home, doing this was first on my list..
>>> >  > Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 06:50:24 +0300
>>> > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>>> > > From: itamar@code972.com
>>> > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> > >
>>> > > No matter, I'm good now. Thanks..
>>> > >
>>> > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Prescott Nasser <
>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > If nobody beats me to it, ill do it tonight
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Sent from my Windows Phone
>>> > > > ________________________________
>>> > > > From: Itamar Syn-Hershko
>>> > > > Sent: 9/19/2012 1:05 PM
>>> > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Still having hard time getting my environment setup. Can any of
>>> you guys
>>> > > > with commit karma commit a small change to one of the files in
>>> trunk (add a
>>> > > > row to .gitignore or something), this should resolve some issue
>>> I'm having.
>>> > > > Thanks :)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
>>> itamar@code972.com
>>> > > > >wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Due to the SVN change my local repos were invalidated, been
>>> re-cloning
>>> > > > for
>>> > > > > the past 12 hours and still not completed.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > This will have to be delayed a couple more days, sorry about
>>> that.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
>>> itamar@code972.com
>>> > > > >wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >> Lol
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Prescott, I should have it all for you by Monday
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Prescott Nasser <
>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com
>>> > > > >wrote:
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>> pos - I have a mental image of playing chess with
you all as
>>> the pieces
>>> > > > >>> now..
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>> > Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:49:42 -0700
>>> > > > >>> > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>>> > > > >>> > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
>>> > > > >>> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> > > > >>> >
>>> > > > >>> > I get why svn and website needed to move, but
why did you
>>> move Itamar
>>> > > > >>> as
>>> > > > >>> > well?  IGNORE ME.  That was a terrible joke.
 English is fun.
>>> > > > >>> >
>>> > > > >>> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Prescott Nasser
<
>>> > > > >>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>> > > > >>> >
>>> > > > >>> > > Itamar, svn and website are moved. I have
artifacts more
>>> or less
>>> > > > >>> ready to
>>> > > > >>> > > roll - where do you stand with the Spatial
updates? Should
>>> we wait
>>> > > > a
>>> > > > >>> bit to
>>> > > > >>> > > get them or will you need considerable
more time?
>>> > > > >>> > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > From: geobmx540@hotmail.com
>>> > > > >>> > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> > > > >>> > > > Subject: RE: 3.0.3
>>> > > > >>> > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:54:44 -0700
>>> > > > >>> > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > I'm sure at a minimum we'd need a
vote - probably should
>>> get
>>> > > > >>> community
>>> > > > >>> > > consensus as well. At the moment I'm trying
to keep up
>>> with all the
>>> > > > >>> other
>>> > > > >>> > > changes moving from incubator to a tlp.
I'll reach out to
>>> infra on
>>> > > > >>> the
>>> > > > >>> > > process though.
>>> > > > >>> > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:43:56
+0300
>>> > > > >>> > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>>> > > > >>> > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
>>> > > > >>> > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> > > > >>> > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > No JIRA tickets, a couple of
locally fixed bugs, a fix
>>> for this
>>> > > > >>> > > > > issue<
>>> > > > >>> > >
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > >
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4342?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13447823#comment-13447823
>>> > > > >>> > > >,
>>> > > > >>> > > > > and bringing Spatial4n up to
speed with the latest
>>> official
>>> > > > >>> release of
>>> > > > >>> > > > > spatial4j. I'm mid-work on all
of those. This is
>>> mostly updates
>>> > > > >>> but 2
>>> > > > >>> > > of
>>> > > > >>> > > > > the bugs may severely affect
results and sorting.
>>> > > > >>> > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > Speaking of SVN - what would
be the process for
>>> pushing towards
>>> > > > >>> a move
>>> > > > >>> > > to
>>> > > > >>> > > > > git? would we need a vote?
>>> > > > >>> > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:36
PM, Prescott Nasser <
>>> > > > >>> > > geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>> > > > >>> > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > I was going to put artifacts
up for a vote after
>>> moving SVN
>>> > > > >>> this
>>> > > > >>> > > weekend,
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > but found out I needed INFRA
to move it. I was
>>> waiting,
>>> > > > >>> because we
>>> > > > >>> > > have
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > some links in the help files
that I didn't want to
>>> update
>>> > > > >>> without
>>> > > > >>> > > the new
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > svn set.
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > Do you have JIRA tickets
for the bugs? How severe
>>> are they? I
>>> > > > >>> guess
>>> > > > >>> > > we
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > could wait, anyone else
have opinions?
>>> > > > >>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012
02:33:59 +0300
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > Since this have been
delayed thus far, if we can
>>> release
>>> > > > >>> 3.0.3 next
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > Monday
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > that would be great
- I'll be able to push a
>>> couple of more
>>> > > > >>> last
>>> > > > >>> > > minute
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > bug
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > fixes to the spatial
module, and also merge trunk
>>> with the
>>> > > > >>> working
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > branch.
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012
at 10:29 PM, Prescott Nasser <
>>> > > > >>> > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > >wrote:
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > If you guys have
time could you merge them into
>>> 3.0.3.
>>> > > > >>> Unless
>>> > > > >>> > > someone
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > has
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > objections, I'm
going to cut the artifacts in
>>> the next
>>> > > > day
>>> > > > >>> or
>>> > > > >>> > > so. We've
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > kind of pushed
this off long enough for the
>>> "last little
>>> > > > >>> fix",
>>> > > > >>> > > at this
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > point what's left
can come in 3.6 imo
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > ~P
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Date: Tue,
4 Sep 2012 07:14:18 +0200
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > From: sisve@devhost.se
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Subject:
Re: 3.0.3
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > I've been
using the 3.0.3 packages for some
>>> time
>>> > > > without
>>> > > > >>> any
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > problems.
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > There were
some commits to the trunk for
>>> LUCENENET-504
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > <
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-504>
>>> > > > >>> and
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > LUCENENET-506
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > <
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-506>
>>> > > > >>> which
>>> > > > >>> > > could be
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > applied to
the 3.0.3-branch. They both affect
>>> the
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > FastVectorHighlighter,
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > adding support
for more query-types. I'm not
>>> sure if
>>> > > > they
>>> > > > >>> > > should be
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > applied to
the 3.0.3-release since they have
>>> had very
>>> > > > >>> little
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > testing, on
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > the other
hand, how much more testing will the
>>> > > > >>> > > FastVectorHighlighter
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > get
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > for the 3.6-release?
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > On 2012-09-03
19:10, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Alright,
I'm back from vacation - are we
>>> happy enough
>>> > > > >>> with
>>> > > > >>> > > the
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > 3.0.3
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > nuget packages?
It looks like no other
>>> adjustments were
>>> > > > >>> made to
>>> > > > >>> > > the
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > 3.0.3
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > branch. Should
we cut the release artifacts? ~P
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >>> > > >
>>> > > > >>> > >
>>> > > > >>> > >
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message