lucene-lucene-net-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
Date Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:59:32 GMT
Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and would want to
complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption issue we raised.
I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly do all that, but
I'll keep you posted.

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> 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