lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Svensson <si...@devhost.se>
Subject Re: Current state of Jira and ".net-ification"
Date Mon, 21 Jan 2019 08:01:49 GMT
Hi,

LUCENENET-598 is reproducible with our current code. There's a failing
unit test provided in the issue, and it is fixed by the patch in
LUCENE-6001.

I'll write a comment in the issue and leave it open since it is a known
bug and have a known fixVersion. (However, our project doesn't have that
fixVersion yet, so we cannot properly tag it as such in Jira.)
Regarding the permissions; I'm not sure how they are configured. I have
permissions to resolve/close issues, but not much more.

// Simon Svensson

On 2019-01-19 19:12, Laimonas Simutis wrote:
> Simon,
> 
> Please see my thoughts below.
> 
> 
>> LUCENENET-605 is asking to implement ArgumentNullException instead of
>> letting null values become NullReferenceException. The current behavior
>> matches the Java behavior.
>>
> 
> We should close it as won't fix. I was actually going to do that earlier
> today but I do not have access to JIRA to close or modify in any way
> lucene.net issues. Our goal for 4.8 should be to stay as close to the Java
> version as possible and as you said, Lucene has the same behavior, it
> throws null exception. That should suffice as a good won't fix reason.
> 
> 
>>
>> LUCENENET-600 is about the number of first-chance exceptions. This
>> sounds like another .NET-ification.
> 
> 
>> About the .NET-ification; is this something we're doing for 4.8?
>>
> 
> Same as for LUCENENET-605, it should be left alone and not done for 4.8
> release. I know having gone through fixing hard to track down bugs, if we
> start stearing away from the original code base it will be hard to track
> down where the problem is. Let's avoid it. I know that there are
> performance issues due to exceptions, but again, my vote would be to
> address that separately once 4.8 is released.
> 
> 
>>
>> LUCENENET-598 is the same as LUCENE-6001, which was fixed in Lucene
>> 4.10. Am I correct in thinking that we do not fix this issue since the
>> same problem exists in Lucene's 4.8?
>>
> 
> I wonder if somehow we still have that issue in our current 4.8 lucene.net
> code base? Were you able to reproduce it based on the example the user
> provided?
> 
> 
>>
>> There are three unreleased versions in Jira which I believe we can
>> archive; 3.6, 4.0 and 5.0 PCL. Archiving these means that they can no
>> longer be selected when new bugs are reported. Do we still have any
>> purpose for having these selectable when new issues are filed?
>>
> 
> Have no opinion there.
> 
> Laimonas
> 

Mime
View raw message