lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <>
Subject Re: 4.8.0
Date Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:00:03 GMT
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

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branch is it's very outdated already (Java Lucene is currently at 4.9), and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 | @synhershko <>
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Author of RavenDB in Action <>

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:37 AM, David Wan <> 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 []
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:30 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: 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 []
> Sent: 23 July 2014 16:02
> To:
> Subject: Re: 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?
> >
> 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
> ---------------------------------------------------------

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