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 Thu, 13 Jun 2013 05:08:22 GMT
Hi everyone!

Does someone know where can I find the 3.0.3 release from Lucene(java)?

I`ll compare the following major versions: 3.03, 3.6.2 and 4.3.0 and make
the diff between then and get all changes between releases... I gonna
publish it here soon. (If you think there is another important release, let
me know)

Paul, are you dealing (i`m not sure about this word, sorry) with 4.3.0 port
for .Net on github (last email)?

See you,


2013/6/10 Paul Irwin <pirwin@feature23.com>

> Thanks for the discussion points, Michael.
>
> I would vote for not worrying about trying to achieve portable
> compatibility for WP8/WinRT/etc until *after* a port to 4.3+ is completed.
> Otherwise it may delay the project and stall it further. That's just my
> $0.02 based on my admittedly selfish need for 4.x features.
>
> I have started porting the changes from the core library (from the
> java lucene_solr_4_3 branch) in my fork on github in a separate branch.
> Since I need 4.3 ASAP, I am just going to keep going on my port until
> there's changes to pull from upstream to work from. Also due to my time
> constraints, I am not fully documenting new methods that I'm adding. But if
> anyone wants to pull/copy/reference my changes while porting, that's
> awesome. My branch currently does not build as I'm primarily going
> class-by-class, starting with the util namespace. Once we get the ball
> rolling on a community effort, I'll stop my rogue work and join in. But
> hopefully my work will be useful to someone, if not as a pull request then
> as a reference. I'm also going to be holding a hackathon this week with my
> colleagues where we're all going to work on the port. I'm comparing files
> and making changes as necessary, rather than starting from scratch. My
> repo/branch is here:
> https://github.com/paulirwin/lucene.net/tree/lucene_4_3_0
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:16 PM, mherndon michael <
> mherndon@michaelherndon.com> wrote:
>
> > the guithub.com repo is a mirror to the git mirror that apache
> maintains.
> >
> > The was some work at one time to move the official svn repository to
> start
> > using git one instead.  Was that actually finalized or not?
> >
> > The Lucene.Net_4e (e for experimental) is an old branch to see what kind
> of
> > work was involved using a portable libraries project. Some of it can
> still
> > be used but will need to be validated against the current version of
> Java's
> > Lucene.  It was also using .net 4.
> >
> > clean branch vs current.     Its going to depend on what we support. If
> you
> > support windows mobile 8, win RT, then the current code in trunk will not
> > compile against those versions of the framework which would a frustrating
> > starting point, then you couldn't even run tests, which would make taking
> > patches very difficult.  Supporting those can almost mean larger gaps in
> > design between Lucene.Net and its parent project.
> >
> > Also the  structure has changed significantly between the branches and
> the
> > side of the code base of Lucene 4 is bigger, uses Java 6, and seems
> > significantly different.  That doesn't mean you can't cherry pick stuff
> > from the other tags/branches that would still work as is.  A clean branch
> > would also make it easier to get our build / tool chain in order as you
> can
> > then do them incrementally versus having to do all the stuff that I did
> for
> > the 3x branch which saps energy and desire to code.   It could also make
> it
> > easier to see which classes have been ported or not.
> >
> > The major downside to a clean branch is extra work it requires and the
> > start up cost in time and energy of getting it in order, which can be
> > daunting / intimidating and lower morale. And generally you want to use
> > take your legacy code and refactor instead of in someways starting over.
> >
> > Are we going to port lucene 4 or 4.3 ?   If so I can do something similar
> > to
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/LUCENENET/lucene-4x-port-progress.html#Lucene4xPortProgress-Lucene.NetCoreFolders
> > where it tracks what needs to get ported / what has been ported.
> >
> > What are we going to support in the next version?
> >
> > Who is going to work on the next version?
> >
> > What would make the most sense and what would invigorate the community to
> > get involved more and lower the barrier to entry?
> >
> > I think those are the questions that would make a lot of the decisions
> for
> > us so that we can get back to work on lucene.net.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Marcos Lima <marcoslimagon@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
>



-- 
--
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