lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcos Lima <marcoslima...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Lucene 4.0
Date Fri, 07 Jun 2013 02:13:46 GMT
Regarding the new branch, I'm a rookie with ASF projects...

The https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene.net/ and
https://github.com/apache/lucene.net points to the same repository? (This
is new for me, pretty good) Which of them do you recommend (i'm used with
SVN and its patterns).

I'm checking the subversion right now.

I can see the branches/Lucene.Net_4e. I think this is a old branch, i`m not
sure about its current status.

Will we wipe the current solution from /trunk and start a new one?

Thanks,




2013/6/6 mherndon michael <mherndon@michaelherndon.com>

> We may be forced to start with a clean/empty branch if people still want to
> attempt supporting lucene.net for mobile devices, win RT, etc. The are
> many
> classes that Lucene.net uses from the full framework that would not be
> accessible in other versions of the .NET Framework.  It also might require
> a design that differs even more from its parent project.
>
> It might be wise to poll what users most desire in the next version through
> jira or user voice.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com
> >wrote:
>
> > inline
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Paul Irwin <pirwin@feature23.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, I gotcha. Still getting used to git, I've been a TFS guy for so
> long
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > So to recap, the branch_3x will be used for any patches or anything to
> > the
> > > current 3.0.3 release, while trunk is what we will branch from for 4x
> > dev.
> > > Correct?
> > >
> >
> > Yes - we can branch from it for 3.6 development if anyone will be
> > interested in that
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks for pushing the Version.cs. What's the deal with the github
> sync?
> > > Who could diagnose that?
> > >
> >
> > Not sure, Apache Infra, basically. Just use the apache repo for now while
> > we get that sorted out.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok, haven't noticed that branch. Just use it then for 3.x
> development.
> > > WRT
> > > > v4, yeah - just fork the repo and work on whatever branch. When you
> > send
> > > us
> > > > PRs we will merge either to master or to a dedicated repo. For now it
> > > > doesn't really matter, thats the beauty of git.
> > > >
> > > > I pushed a new Version.cs file, you should see it on the apache
> servers
> > > > (github sync seems to be off)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Paul Irwin <pirwin@feature23.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks Itamar. I can certainly start work on 4.3 version of the
> > > Analysis
> > > > > namespace.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not sure the checkout command is what you intended -- you might
> have
> > > > meant
> > > > > trunk instead of master, and that would create a new "3x" branch,
> > when
> > > > > there's already a "branch_3x" and that would be misnamed... so
> maybe
> > > > > checkout -b branch_4x trunk and start there aiming for lucene 4.3.x
> > > > > compatibility?
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, does someone with commit rights to the upstream want to
> create
> > > the
> > > > > necessary Version.cs entries, so that we're not all trying to
> create
> > > them
> > > > > and dealing with a merge?
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > itamar@code972.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Unless people here have a specific reason to use 3.6.2 I would
> > highly
> > > > > > recommed putting all the efforts we can towards v4 otherwise
we
> > will
> > > > > never
> > > > > > make it...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fork the repo from apache servers or github (same repo, different
> > > > > remotes)
> > > > > > and checkout -b 3x -t origin/master , that should work
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Paul Irwin <
> pirwin@feature23.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Itamar,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree that from scratch is not the best way to do it,
I just
> > > > thought
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > was the "decision" that was made from the discussion previously
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > 4.x
> > > > > > > work. An incremental approach will be much better.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've created a branch of the branch_3x branch on my fork
and
> will
> > > > begin
> > > > > > > working on bringing the Analysis namespace up to speed
to
> 3.6.2.
> > If
> > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > wants to pull it or just reuse parts once I'm done, have
at it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If I shouldn't have branched off the branch_3x branch,
please
> let
> > > me
> > > > > know
> > > > > > > what I should have branched from (trunk?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > > itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks Prescott for bringing this up again :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Paul, the problem is no one can really know what it
would
> take
> > > > until
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > have deep dived into the work, and even then decisions
could
> > and
> > > > will
> > > > > > > > change. I will strongly advise against starting from
scratch,
> > > > > although
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > think a lot in the current structure should change,
but its
> > going
> > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > much easier to change it in place, refactoring where
needed,
> > than
> > > > > > > starting
> > > > > > > > all over again. Once we kicked this off I personally
will be
> > > happy
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > taking the analysis part of Lucene and porting it,
its pretty
> > > much
> > > > > self
> > > > > > > > contained.
> > > > > > > > Re 3.6.2 work - you can just do that on a fork and
send us
> PRs,
> > > its
> > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > more straight forward than the v4 upgrade
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marcos, porting class by class is the fastest way
to do this,
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > concentrate on .NETifying and optimizing using .NET
> constructs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That said, I think the way to go is create a branch
out of
> the
> > > > > current
> > > > > > > git
> > > > > > > > master HEAD and label it "3.x", and start working
on master
> > > > towards a
> > > > > > 4.3
> > > > > > > > compatible version. The actual port should be using
a process
> > > that
> > > > > > > ensures
> > > > > > > > all Java classes are ported with their tests, and
that those
> > > tests
> > > > > > pass -
> > > > > > > > but I'm against committing any Java code to our repositories.
> > The
> > > > > > process
> > > > > > > > should probably be working on classes in some order
> > > > (alphabetically,
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > core classes first) and getting each class to compile
before
> > > moving
> > > > > > > > forward. I don't mind about the project not being
compilable
> > for
> > > a
> > > > > > month
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > two.
> > > > > > > > Once this is done a process of .NETifying and proofing
the
> code
> > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > started, at which point we will already have a working
v4
> > version
> > > > so
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > will be easier to keep up with the Java project.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The first step IMO is to stabilize the test suite
so tests
> > could
> > > > more
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > less be copied and pasted (e.g. implementing Java-like
> > > assertEquals
> > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > etc; I find xUnit to be much easier to work with than
> NUnit). I
> > > > > already
> > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > some work there but there's still a lot to do.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unfortunately I can't dedicate time myself at this
point,
> but I
> > > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > back in business in August, at which point I can dedicate
> > several
> > > > > > hours a
> > > > > > > > week. Until then I'll be happy to watch closely and
even
> > > coordinate
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > work to some extent.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Marcos Lima <
> > > > > marcoslimagon@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It really sounds good to me, this is a kick start
=). I
> > haven't
> > > > > > > > contributed
> > > > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > yet, but I would like to help you all to get
this job done.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm completely agree with Paul and Prescott.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I know that there is a high commitment for keep
the
> > > > > > retrocompatibility
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > Lucene. Does Java Lucene API gets big changes
every
> release?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is the Lucene.Net a port from a stable version
from a
> Lucene
> > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > right? If the Lucene API gets only minor changes
every
> stable
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > (or
> > > > > > > > > keep most of its source-code), we could compare
the
> versions,
> > > > check
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > differences and bring them to Lucene.Net. Again,
I haven't
> > > > > > contributed
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > yet, so I don't know how it is (just an idea).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What's your approach for implement simple performance
> > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > (without
> > > > > > > > > adding references or changing methods signatures)?
Does it
> > > could
> > > > be
> > > > > > > done,
> > > > > > > > > or "follow the java version only"?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2013/6/6 Paul Irwin <pirwin@feature23.com>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is just an "outsider" suggestion as
I haven't
> > > contributed
> > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > > yet, although I will definitely help with
the 4.x work
> as I
> > > > have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > vested
> > > > > > > > > > interest in seeing that get completed. I
think there
> should
> > > be
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > > person
> > > > > > > > > > (or perhaps two) guiding what the structure
and workflow
> > will
> > > > > look
> > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > avoid chaos. If the 4.x work is going to
be starting from
> > > > scratch
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > fresh port, that person should set up the
project, get
> > > > everything
> > > > > > > going
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > source control, create the folder structure,
maybe stub
> out
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > classes,
> > > > > > > > > > etc. Then divide and conquer with anyone
interested in
> > > > > > contributing,
> > > > > > > > > > perhaps by namespace.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I like the idea of throwing the java code
in there so
> it's
> > > easy
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > reference.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Again, I can work on Lucene.Net.Documents,
> > > Lucene.Net.Analysis,
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > Lucene.Net.Store -- or any others, those
are just the
> ones
> > > I'm
> > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > familiar with the inner workings. Tell me
what to do and
> > I'll
> > > > get
> > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > on my fork.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Paul Irwin
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Prescott
Nasser <
> > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey guys -
> > > > > > > > > > > I know I've been MIA a little while.
We have a board
> > report
> > > > due
> > > > > > > soon
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > think it prudent that we advise them
that we seem to
> have
> > > > > stalled
> > > > > > > > > > somewhat.
> > > > > > > > > > > We've got a few low hanging items out
of of jira and
> have
> > > > been
> > > > > > > > > responsive
> > > > > > > > > > > on the mailing list to community questions,
but I don't
> > > think
> > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > > > > > anything to move forward with 4.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > To that end - I'd like to *try* and
start us back up
> > moving
> > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > > What
> > > > > > > > > > > is the best way to accomplish this?
If we took the java
> > > > lucene
> > > > > > 4.0
> > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > committed that java to our branch and
then just let
> > people
> > > > pull
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > > > > > and being changing / modifying is that
one way to maybe
> > > make
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > forward
> > > > > > > > > > > progress?
> > > > > > > > > > > ~P
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Marcos Lima
> > > > > > > > > Software Developer/Tech Lead
> > > > > > > > > marcoslimagon@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > tel: +55 (19) 9798-9335
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
--
Marcos Lima
Software Developer/Tech Lead
marcoslimagon@gmail.com
tel: +55 (19) 9798-9335

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