lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Currens <currens.ch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget Packages
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:44:06 GMT
I don't think there was a reason.  I think that's just how it was done when
it was added.

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>wrote:

> Why do we have a single nuget package for all contribs in the first place?
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Christopher Currens <
> currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, the single nuget contrib package will cause problems, because
>> both Contrib.Spatial and Contrib.Spatial.NTS use the same namespace...
>>
>> If we appended NTS to the namespace, then it would break the tests,
>> because we run the same test code for both, and would then need to
>> update all the using namespace definitions.  It seems the best
>> solution would be to have a separate nuget packaged for it.
>>
>> How should I go about this?  Should I try and separate it out (I might
>> as well do more or all of them, then)?  In theory, it should be pretty
>> easy, except for all of the new descriptions that would have  to be
>> written for each nuspec :/
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > We have a single nuget contrib package atm.
>> >
>> > For the naming convention thing Chris - might as well get that in. I
>> have a
>> > few hours window in about 4 hours to redo the nuget stuff.
>> >
>> > Dev users - this was supposed to be a quick back and forth but grew a
>> bit,
>> > it should have been on the dev list. My apologies.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Sent from my Windows Phone
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Itamar Syn-Hershko
>> > Sent: 8/23/2012 10:42 AM
>> > To: Christopher Currens
>> > Cc: Prescott Nasser
>> >
>> > Subject: Re: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget Packages
>> >
>> > If there is a package for each contrib, let's have NTS as another
>> package.
>> > For that package, add NetTopologySuite 1.12 and GeoAPI as nuget
>> dependencies
>> > (I think the GeoAPI one will be derived from NTS anyway)
>> >
>> > I think we should also release with LUCENENET-503 in
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Christopher Currens
>> > <currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Should I add the NTS spatial to the Spatial nuget package or create a
>> > separate Spatial.NTS nuget package?
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Christopher Currens
>> > <currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Yeah.  I'll get all that done and send out another email when its
>> >> finished.  Should I get LUCENENET-503 in there as well, or only put
>> >> that in trunk?  It's just a naming consistency thing.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
>> itamar@code972.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Cool, thanks
>> >>>
>> >>> Can you also handle updating the assemblies in both trunk and branch?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Christopher Currens
>> >>> <currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out how to properly
>> >>>> push to github (I have no idea why, I've done it in the past!),
but I
>> >>>> made a pull request with configuration changes to allow it to build
>> in
>> >>>> .NET 3.5 and 4.0.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Now, I'm going to push changes to the SVN that changes all of the
>> >>>> assembly metadata from 2.9.x to 3.0.3
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Christopher Currens
>> >>>> <currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> > If you want to target multiple frameworks, each framework version
>> has
>> >>>> > to live in each configuration property group.  You have
>> >>>> > TargetFrameworkVersion v3.5 set in the *35 configurations,
but
>> there's
>> >>>> > a global v4.0 that's overriding it.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > I actually have changes that fix this, I just have to figure
out
>> how
>> >>>> > to use git properly. :)
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko
>> >>>> > <itamar@code972.com>
>> >>>> > wrote:
>> >>>> >> Pushed my latest changes to github. Some 3.5 compilation
setting
>> must
>> >>>> >> be off
>> >>>> >> - can you have a look?
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Maybe we should update all contrib metadata to say 3.0.3?
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Christopher Currens
>> >>>> >> <currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> The binaries in lib/spatial4n/NET35 are actually targeting
the
>> 4.0
>> >>>> >>> runtime, so Visual Studio and MSBuild refuses to compile
them,
>> >>>> >>> saying
>> >>>> >>> it can't find those types.  I pushed .NET 35 binaries
to the
>> 3.0.3
>> >>>> >>> branch, and I just noticed that you updated the binaries
in Trunk
>> >>>> >>> about a half hour ago.  Right now Trunk fails for me
and 3.0.3
>> >>>> >>> succeeds.  I'm assuming those include changes to the
binaries in
>> >>>> >>> trunk
>> >>>> >>> aren't present in the Spatial4n repo on github, so
I wasn't
>> going to
>> >>>> >>> try and rebuild them for the 3.0.3 branch.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> There's another issue I found while messing around
with this (I
>> >>>> >>> actually was starting work on LUCENENET-503 when I
ran into
>> this),
>> >>>> >>> we
>> >>>> >>> have a lot of contrib assemblies with old assembly
metadata.
>>  Some
>> >>>> >>> contrib assemblies are marked 2.9.2, some 2.9.4, and
a few
>> others.
>> >>>> >>> I'll be pushing those changes to the 3.0.3 branch,
which should
>> be
>> >>>> >>> fine considering they're just metadata changes.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko
>> >>>> >>> <itamar@code972.com>
>> >>>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> >>> > I just committed a few changes that should resolve
some of
>> those
>> >>>> >>> > issues.
>> >>>> >>> >
>> >>>> >>> > .NET 4.0 compilation goes smooth, but I can't
get 3.5 to
>> properly
>> >>>> >>> > compile
>> >>>> >>> > and test, not sure why. Will appreciate it if
you can have a
>> look.
>> >>>> >>> >
>> >>>> >>> > Chris just pushed some changes to the branch,
not sure if they
>> are
>> >>>> >>> > related?
>> >>>> >>> > CC'ed him
>> >>>> >>> >
>> >>>> >>> > No problem re the lib folder. If the contribs
are split up and
>> >>>> >>> > each
>> >>>> >>> > will
>> >>>> >>> > have its own nuget package we can have 2 for spatial
- one
>> regular
>> >>>> >>> > and
>> >>>> >>> > the
>> >>>> >>> > other NTS, while the latter will depend on GeoAPI
and
>> >>>> >>> > NetTopologySuite
>> >>>> >>> > to
>> >>>> >>> > automate this a bit.
>> >>>> >>> >
>> >>>> >>> > I can also put Spatial4n on nuget, but I think
it's a bit too
>> >>>> >>> > early
>> >>>> >>> > for
>> >>>> >>> > that
>> >>>> >>> >
>> >>>> >>> > Any way, I'm good with releasing it now
>> >>>> >>> >
>> >>>> >>> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Prescott Nasser
>> >>>> >>> > <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
>> >>>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> Sorry, wasn't quite clear. Two things.
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> First the project didn't reference the lib/spatial4n
stuff so
>> I
>> >>>> >>> >> included
>> >>>> >>> >> those references - but I wanted to confirm
with you that that
>> was
>> >>>> >>> >> right. -
>> >>>> >>> >> you've confirmed that is right.
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> The second issue is that the lib folder is
we cannot
>> distribute,
>> >>>> >>> >> nor
>> >>>> >>> >> can
>> >>>> >>> >> we distribute any files that we don't have
source code for in
>> our
>> >>>> >>> >> svn.
>> >>>> >>> >> So as
>> >>>> >>> >> it stands, I could compile the spatial project,
but I when I
>> put
>> >>>> >>> >> the
>> >>>> >>> >> nuget
>> >>>> >>> >> package up, I will have to add spatial4n as
a dependency.
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> This isn't a problem, I just wanted to make
sure it was clear
>> and
>> >>>> >>> >> that's
>> >>>> >>> >> your intention
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> Sent from my Windows Phone
>> >>>> >>> >> ________________________________
>> >>>> >>> >> From: Itamar Syn-Hershko
>> >>>> >>> >> Sent: 8/23/2012 2:20 AM
>> >>>> >>> >> To: Prescott Nasser
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> Subject: Re: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget Packages
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> I'm not sure I'm following, all the spatial4n
stuff is already
>> >>>> >>> >> committed
>> >>>> >>> >> to lib/spatial4n. What was the problem and
what did you fix?
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> The DLLs there are used twice - Spatial4n.Core
from
>> >>>> >>> >> Contrib.Spatial,
>> >>>> >>> >> and
>> >>>> >>> >> Spatial4n.Core.NTS + GeoAPI + NetTopologySuite
+
>> PowerCollection
>> >>>> >>> >> from
>> >>>> >>> >> Contrib.Spatial.NTS (the one with polygon
support enabled). I
>> >>>> >>> >> hope
>> >>>> >>> >> that
>> >>>> >>> >> makes sense now.
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Prescott
Nasser
>> >>>> >>> >> <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
>> >>>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> Hey Itamar - I'm trying to compile the contrib
packages - I
>> ran
>> >>>> >>> >> into an
>> >>>> >>> >> error. I solved it by making sure to include
all the
>> >>>> >>> >> lib/Spatial4n
>> >>>> >>> >> packages
>> >>>> >>> >> - does that sound right to you? I'll have
a few hours
>> tomorrow to
>> >>>> >>> >> hopefully
>> >>>> >>> >> get 3.0.3 Contrib RC2 put on nuget.
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> Also, any reason we didn't include all of
these .dll's in the
>> >>>> >>> >> contrib
>> >>>> >>> >> folder? Are you keeping those under a difference
license and
>> >>>> >>> >> don't
>> >>>> >>> >> want
>> >>>> >>> >> to
>> >>>> >>> >> integrate them with the Lucene.Net.Contrib.Spatial
project
>> >>>> >>> >> specifically?
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> ~P
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> ________________________________
>> >>>> >>> >> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 04:41:36 +0300
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> Subject: Re: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget Packages
>> >>>> >>> >> From: itamar@code972.com
>> >>>> >>> >> To: geobmx540@hotmail.com
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> Yeah I think it is. Let's cut another RC and
see how it goes.
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> Enjoy your vacation!
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:25 AM, Prescott
Nasser
>> >>>> >>> >> <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
>> >>>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> Good to go? I'll can merge trunk into 3.0.3
if you can't
>> easily
>> >>>> >>> >> and
>> >>>> >>> >> then
>> >>>> >>> >> I'll reroll the packages
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> ________________________________
>> >>>> >>> >> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:17:30 +0300
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> Subject: Re: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget Packages
>> >>>> >>> >> From: itamar@code972.com
>> >>>> >>> >> To: geobmx540@hotmail.com
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> yes I was
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Prescott
Nasser
>> >>>> >>> >> <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
>> >>>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> Sounds good - did you get a bounce from
>> dev@lucenenet.apache.org?
>> >>>> >>> >> I
>> >>>> >>> >> think
>> >>>> >>> >> they accidentally closed the jira to set those
up without
>> getting
>> >>>> >>> >> them
>> >>>> >>> >> setup
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> ________________________________
>> >>>> >>> >> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:16:53 +0300
>> >>>> >>> >> Subject: Fwd: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget Packages
>> >>>> >>> >> From: itamar@code972.com
>> >>>> >>> >> To: geobmx540@hotmail.com
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >>>> >>> >> From: Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>
>> >>>> >>> >> Date: Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:13 PM
>> >>>> >>> >> Subject: Re: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget Packages
>> >>>> >>> >> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> Give me a couple of more hours, I want to
recheck everything
>> is
>> >>>> >>> >> in
>> >>>> >>> >> place,
>> >>>> >>> >> and then you'll have my green light
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Prescott
Nasser
>> >>>> >>> >> <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
>> >>>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> Itamar - looks like you e committed it all,
are you
>> satisfied? I
>> >>>> >>> >> will
>> >>>> >>> >> merge changes into 3.0.3 and cut new nuget
packages.
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> Ill be gone for two weeks with limited email,
so unless
>> someone
>> >>>> >>> >> else
>> >>>> >>> >> wants
>> >>>> >>> >> to cut RC's for the binary and source releases
and hold a
>> vote,
>> >>>> >>> >> ill
>> >>>> >>> >> do
>> >>>> >>> >> that
>> >>>> >>> >> right when I get back
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> Sent from my Windows Phone
>> >>>> >>> >> ________________________________
>> >>>> >>> >> From: Prescott Nasser
>> >>>> >>> >> Sent: 8/18/2012 2:02 PM
>> >>>> >>> >> To: Lucene Developers
>> >>>> >>> >> Subject: RE: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget Packages
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >> Alright, that's reasonable. Shoot us an email
when you've got
>> it
>> >>>> >>> >> complete,
>> >>>> >>> >> I will cut another lucene.net.contrib pre-release
package for
>> >>>> >>> >> nuget,
>> >>>> >>> >> and
>> >>>> >>> >> give the community until next weekend to vet
it.  Meanwhile -
>> >>>> >>> >> Does
>> >>>> >>> >> anyone
>> >>>> >>> >> know how to run RAT against the 3.0.3 branch?
I'd like to get
>> a
>> >>>> >>> >> report
>> >>>> >>> >> on
>> >>>> >>> >> that so we can fix any issues there ~P
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >>  > Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 22:56:58 +0300
>> >>>> >>> >> > Subject: Re: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget
Packages
>> >>>> >>> >> > From: itamar@code972.com
>> >>>> >>> >> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> >>>> >>> >> >
>> >>>> >>> >> > Actively working on it as we speak, should
be ready by
>> Tuesday.
>> >>>> >>> >> > Up to
>> >>>> >>> >> > you :)
>> >>>> >>> >> >
>> >>>> >>> >> > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Prescott
Nasser
>> >>>> >>> >> > <geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
>> >>>> >>> >> >
>> >>>> >>> >> > >
>> >>>> >>> >> > >
>> >>>> >>> >> > >
>> >>>> >>> >> > > Itamar - can you provide a status
update on what work
>> you've
>> >>>> >>> >> > > done
>> >>>> >>> >> > > on
>> >>>> >>> >> > > the
>> >>>> >>> >> > > Geometry stuff? If it's something
that you're close on,
>> could
>> >>>> >>> >> > > we
>> >>>> >>> >> > > commit it
>> >>>> >>> >> > > to the trunk and 3.0.3 branch so
that the community could
>> try
>> >>>> >>> >> > > their
>> >>>> >>> >> > > hand at
>> >>>> >>> >> > > finishing it? If not, I think we
should move without it. I
>> >>>> >>> >> > > don't
>> >>>> >>> >> > > want
>> >>>> >>> >> > > to
>> >>>> >>> >> > > hold off 3.0.3 that much longer
>> >>>> >>> >> > >
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > Subject: Re: 3.0.3 Pre-Release
Nuget Packages
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > From: zgramana@gmail.com
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:18:17
-0400
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> >>>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > Glad to hear it.
>> >>>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > FWIW, I've deployed the Spatial
contrib on client
>> projects
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > against
>> >>>> >>> >> > > 2.9.4.1, which would break without
the Geometry namespace.
>> >>>> >>> >> > > I'm
>> >>>> >>> >> > > doubt
>> >>>> >>> >> > > I'm
>> >>>> >>> >> > > the only one.
>> >>>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > I would encourage not releasing
the 3.0.3
>> Contribs.Spatial
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > until
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > that is
>> >>>> >>> >> > > included. I think most people using
the stable NuGet feed
>> >>>> >>> >> > > would
>> >>>> >>> >> > > expect
>> >>>> >>> >> > > 3.0.3 to be complete with respect
to Java Lucene. It may
>> take
>> >>>> >>> >> > > people
>> >>>> >>> >> > > quite
>> >>>> >>> >> > > a bit of work to get their code
working again in 3.0.3
>> with
>> >>>> >>> >> > > just
>> >>>> >>> >> > > the
>> >>>> >>> >> > > .NETification changes alone. If
people find that, after
>> all
>> >>>> >>> >> > > that
>> >>>> >>> >> > > work,
>> >>>> >>> >> > > they
>> >>>> >>> >> > > now have to wait for a maintenance
release, there could be
>> >>>> >>> >> > > some
>> >>>> >>> >> > > real
>> >>>> >>> >> > > grumpy
>> >>>> >>> >> > > coders out there taking to social
media with pitch forks
>> in
>> >>>> >>> >> > > hand.
>> >>>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > It sounded like he was done
with 4.0 and just back
>> porting
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > to
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > 3.5. I
>> >>>> >>> >> > > would be happy to lend Itamar a
hand, if he feels it could
>> >>>> >>> >> > > help.
>> >>>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > On Aug 15, 2012, at 4:29 PM,
Christopher Currens <
>> >>>> >>> >> > > currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > Itamar said a few weeks
ago he was planning on
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > getting polygon support
into the spatial module (I am
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > assuming
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > that
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > this is the Geometry namespace).
 I'm unsure if it
>> will
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > make it
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > into
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > the official 3.0.3 release
or it if it will be pushed
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > back
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > into
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > a
>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > maintenance release shortly
after.
>> >>>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>>> >>> >> > >
>> >>>> >>> >> > >
>> >>>> >>> >> > >
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >>
>> >>>> >>> >
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

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