lucene-lucene-net-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
Date Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:20:37 GMT

Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with the cls issues at present. With that,
I think we are ready to roll with a release. If people could please take some time to run
all the test as well as whatever other tests they might run. We've had some issues with tests
only happening on some systems so I want to make sure we have those bases covered. Unless
there is anything else that should be done, I'll leave every one a week to run their tests.
Next saturday I will tag the trunk and cut a release with both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries.  Great
work everyone. ~P
 > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> 
> I can set a different build target, but I can't set the actual framework to
> 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations.  On top of that, 3.5
> needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done automatically in .NET 4
> (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it automatically?).  I did kinda get it
> working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of 4.0 in Debug and Release
> configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5 configurations, but
> that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by hand since visual studio
> doesn't allow you to set different framework versions per configuration,
> and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with references, since both
> frameworks were being referenced.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> 
> >
> > What do you mean doesn't work at the project level? I created a different
> > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and Release still, that seemed to
> > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing something in your explaination.
> > Good work though!
> >  > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > > I've got it working, compiling and all test passing...The only caveat is
> > > that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target.  It doesn't really work
> > on
> > > a project level, so you'd have to create two separate projects, one for
> > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5.  To aid me, I wrote a small tool that
> > creates
> > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions to work against the 3.5
> > > framework.  Anyone have experience with multi-targeting like this?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Christopher
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Have at it.
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a little bit in that
> > branch,
> > > > and
> > > > > see what kind of progress I can make, since I have some time right
> > now.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked into the 3.5 branch, there
is
> > > > more
> > > > > > work to be done we could potentially move it to 3.0.3, but I
put it
> > > > into
> > > > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to having this released,
and
> > > > adding
> > > > > > those changes would add a fair amount of change so close to
the
> > > > release. I
> > > > > > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm mostly just doing
> > > > > > administrative work for the next two weeks though - I have a
few
> > > > things I
> > > > > > have to take care of
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We had a contributer,
Luc
> > > > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting these last few difficult
> > bugs
> > > > out
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or more of the failing
tests
> > from
> > > > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as LUCENE-493, with
the
> > culture
> > > > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no longer get any
culture
> > > > issues,
> > > > > > > since the tests that are marked as culture sensitive are
now all
> > run
> > > > in
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still important and should be
handled.
> > What
> > > > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott had done some
work on
> > this
> > > > and
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > also know this was requested by several in the community.
I would
> > > > love to
> > > > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be able to pick
up where
> > > > anyone
> > > > > > had
> > > > > > > left off or take part of it, if they don't have time to
work on
> > it.
> > > > In
> > > > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it is pretty much
> > complete. I
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > > I've looked several times at it to confirm most/all methods
have
> > been
> > > > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final check and close
it out.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon Svensson <
> > sisve@devhost.se>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using culture=sv-se seems
fixed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> What's the status on the failing tests we had?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Prescott Nasser
<
> > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some work,
but I'm good on
> > this,
> > > > we
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446>.
> > > > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There are still
a good number of
> > > > issues
> > > > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and volatile
are out of scope
> > > > imo).
> > > > > > In a
> > > > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses some obsolete
methods and we
> > > > have a
> > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > >>> variable declared but never used warnings
(mentally, I treat
> > most
> > > > > > warning
> > > > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470>.
> > > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > > >>> much of this has been removed, there are probably
some pieces
> > > > that
> > > > > > left
> > > > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of opinion in the
group as well).
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding issue
is the CLS
> > compliance
> > > > one,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS compliance
we have to ask
> > if
> > > > we've
> > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more is needed.
I personally
> > would
> > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now, with the
3.0.3 release, but
> > if
> > > > we
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37 -0700
> > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the packaging/filesystem
> > structure
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a little of
both (ours vs
> > > > Apache's)...
> > > > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of the
Apache projects to
> > see how
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a structure
that was very
> > > > similar
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed. So,
it's informed by the
> > > > > > organically
> > > > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Prescott
Nasser <
> > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we were using
Nant.
> > > > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release structure".
I figured a
> > little
> > > > out
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and .dll files
into separate
> > > > > > directories. The
> > > > > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki was actually
pretty
> > helpful.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be great
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21 -0400
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues
for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > >>>>>> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > > > >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM,
Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious
one, is listed only because
> > it's
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose
ends tied up. I'll hopefully have
> > > > time to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left?
I did a quick search for
> > > > 'public *
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual methods
- perhaps a few to
> > > > replace
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance),
is important, but there's
> > no
> > > > way we
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current state of
this issue is that
> > all
> > > > of
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> names of public members are now compliant.
There are a few
> > > > things
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte (particularly
those related to the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected
or internal* fields (some
> > > > with
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one will be
appreciated the
> > most. My
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on the amount
of CLS
> > compliance to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest into 3.5.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS compliant
issues. the sbyte stuff
> > > > will run
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting (I ran
into this issue when
> > > > trying
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if we
can't get rid of the
> > > > easier
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I would not
try getting rid of
> > > > sbyte or
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release.
It's going to take some
> > serious
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we
going to add this code (not
> > > > present
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate
the community desire for
> > this in
> > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This
is related to builds being
> > output
> > > > in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do this
for this release?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last weekend
- I'm terrible with
> > Nant, so
> > > > I
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to have, but
I don't think I'll
> > > > figure
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe make
the adjustment, he
> > knows
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to look
into it, but I don't
> > call
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it or we
don't when the rest
> > is
> > > > done.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso
shots, anything is
> > possible.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this.
Is there an official
> > apache
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our* apache
release structure that
> > we
> > > > are
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and use
that to model the
> > > > structure
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build
scripts are a pita in
> > general.
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell or a
scripting language is
> > that
> > > > > > mono
> > > > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs
have it already installed.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time documenting
it so that others
> > can
> > > > work
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
 		 	   		  
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message