lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Irwin <pir...@feature23.com>
Subject Re: Lucene 4.0
Date Thu, 06 Jun 2013 22:09:19 GMT
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?

Thanks for pushing the Version.cs. What's the deal with the github sync?
Who could diagnose that?


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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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