lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Russell Trupiano <t-rus...@microsoft.com>
Subject RE: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Date Wed, 30 Jul 2014 23:21:23 GMT
Hello Itamar,

As the primary contributor to the changes in this port I can answer some of your questions.


The port I have been working on has been built basically from the ground up. I have borrowed
some classes and details from the 3.0.3 release and also from Paul Irwin's work on his branch.
As of right now There are 1840 of the ~2100 unit tests from the Java release passing. My work
has been entirely on the core portion and I have not touched the contrib files at all. There
are a few problem files I have had trouble getting to build so as of now they are just ignored
in Visual Studio (These are test files though). 

I'm sure there will be pieces from the source files that can be improved, as I have had a
limited amount of time to get this working for my internship. Feel free to reach out to me
with any further questions.

Russell

-----Original Message-----
From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Itamar
Syn-Hershko
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:00 PM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Cc: user@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0

Hi David, and welcome.

Thanks for your efforts and willingness to contribute. As Stefan mentioned there probably
will be some paperwork involved before we can do anything with this, but I don't suspect there
will be real problem.

I haven't reviewed your branch yet, so forgive me if answers to some of the items below are
evident by looking at it.

To better understand the current status of your work and plan our next steps with it, can
you please describe in short what you did there, and whether there are parts you know you
haven't worked on? (contrib packages for example? or less commonly used parts of the core?).
Any info you could give us would be helpful - especially if there are known gaps in the implementation.

The way I see this merged in is after the CLA is signed we continue working on a branch until
we are satisfied with it, and then we can test, cleanup, create nugets and stage a release.

I think serious discussion needs to be made between us committers with regards to the 4.3
branch Paul Irwin has worked on recently. Some of his work I was able to review and can confirm
is good and stable, plus I think they are already using it in production. Michael and I chipped
in a bit there as well to rearrange some stuff. The biggest disadvantage of the 4.3 branch
is it's very outdated already (Java Lucene is currently at 4.9), and it has almost no tests
to verify it. I believe the question is mainly - do we want to jump from 3.0 to 4.8 or do
we want to have a 4.3 version as well?

There's also the issue of doubling the efforts - basically most of your work has already been
done and probably tested to some extent by Paul unless you were aware of his efforts and built
on them. Whether we will try and release 4.3 or not, I think we should verify 4.3 and 4.8
in tandem to make sure we don't lose any of the work done.

I'll be more than happy to jump in on this and help wherever necessary.
I've been planning on doing this for a while now on the 4.3 branch but being a freelancer
I always find myself pulled in to other (paid) projects.
Having more people to collaborate with will definitely help focus on this.
That is to say I'm happy to be the coordinator of this merge.

Let's continue this technical discussion on the dev mailing list please, it belongs there.

--

Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> Freelance Developer
& Consultant Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>


On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:37 AM, David Wan <t-dewan@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback. We will be submitting a pull request at the 
> end of this week since we will be making more changes for the next few days.
> Just to clarify, we are working on this project on company time and we 
> have approval to release it for open source with the Apache license.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moray McConnachie [mailto:mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:30 AM
> To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene.net 4.8.0
>
> Any reason this is on the user list not the dev list? Seems like a dev 
> discussion to me now...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
> Sent: 23 July 2014 16:02
> To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
>
> On 2014-07-23, michael herndon wrote:
>
> >> But do we require tickets for other pull requests?  There is 
> >> nothing that would force us to do so.
>
> > Force? No. But, given our track record, a github pull request 
> > without a ticket may get missed for months on end. Committers get 
> > notified when a jira ticket is created or an e-mail is sent on the list.
>
> We can get emails for pull requests as well - I even think we already 
> do but may be wrong.
>
> Anyway, I'm far removed from questioning the desire to have JIRA 
> tickets, I'm fine with it.  Just wanted to be sure you know it is not 
> something the ASF burdens us with.
>
> >> I agree having a JIRA ticket for this case is a good idea so we can 
> >> reuse it if we feel we need to perform an IP-clearance process.[1]
>
> > As for the size... its going to be a decent sized diff.  Would they 
> > need to fill out the icla?
> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>
> If this was a project undertaken by a bunch of people during their 
> spare time then a few ICLAs are in order, if it was created on company 
> time of a shared employer we'd better ask for a software grant by the employer.
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer
>
> This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. 
> If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or 
> disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
>
> Oxford Analytica Ltd
> Registered in England: No. 1196703
> 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Mime
View raw message