lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Date Thu, 07 Aug 2014 23:02:24 GMT
I'm waiting on confirmation from Prescott and Troy on that.

I suspect that bug to be related to threading issues. I'm currently chasing
down another issue with CheckRandomData tests, hopefully I get that fixed
soon as it affects many other tests.

--

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


On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:57 AM, David Wan <t-dewan@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The ICLA and CCLA have both been acknowledged and filed. I will try to
> look at the code and figure out where the bug is.
>
> Thanks,
> Defu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 8:55 PM
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
>
> Ok, I started work on your branch. My goal at this point is to verify all
> the core code and all core tests have been ported, and then to make sure
> they are all running and passing.
>
> Until we get confirmation about the CLAs you can track my work here:
> https://github.com/synhershko/lucene.net/tree/Lucene.Net_4.8.0
>
> There are several core tests which are failing due to some bug with
> SortedSetDocValuesWriter. The Debug.Assert statement in
> SortedSetDocValuesWriter:203 is triggered. Can you have a look see if you
> can figure that one out? it seems like some code there wasn't ported in
> full.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
>
> 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 31, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Russell Trupiano <t-russtr@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message