lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: 3.0.3 Pre-Release Nuget Packages
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:08:24 GMT
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