You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucenenet.apache.org by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com> on 2012/09/11 22:01:13 UTC
3.6
As 3.0.3 is more or less ready to release, I want to talk quickly about 3.6. For 3.0.3 Chris did a herculean job creating the initial code base -
Chris, did you take the java code and port it all? or did you use 2.9.4 and update the code base?
RE: 3.6
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
You guys... I'm going to get Itamar a bat inscribed with GIT so he can just bring that to all conversations with SVN.
I think it probably pays to do a merge right after we tag it and get the artifacts voted by the community. That way anything that gets brought up in our voting that is fixes and re-cut, will make it to the trunk.
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:43:26 -0700
> Subject: Re: 3.6
> From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>
> Oh wait. Nevermind...it looks like I did, at least in the 3.0.3
> branch. Hmm, we actually have quite a few changes that are present
> only in 3.0.3, that should probably be merged into trunk. Should we
> merge all changes in now or after we release? Either way, I strongly
> dislike merging in SVN...ugh
>
> What was that you were saying about git, Itamar? :)
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Christopher Currens
> <cu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Prescott,
> >
> > We had decided to update the scripts/version information for 3.0.3 a
> > while back, and I just realized I did all of the work and never
> > committed it. Yikes. I thought I did, but I must have been
> > distracted when I was doing it, and never actually completed it.
> > We're still waiting on the Spatial stuff right, so I can get this in
> > before release? I don't think it will affect the build/packaging
> > steps.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Christopher
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com> wrote:
> >> This is why they invented git :)
> >>
> >> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/compare/5261b571...e4402c22c
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Christopher Currens <
> >> currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm not much of an SVN guy myself, so what I wound up doing was pulling
> >>> down the two branches and used windiff on the actual directories. I could
> >>> quickly see which files were added, removed, changed, or untouched. I
> >>> guess you could do the same things with SVN probably, but I don't know how
> >>> or if it is a painless process or not.
> >>>
> >>> The biggest thing would be having multiple people working on and dividing
> >>> up the work. A lot of times, you have classes that span namespaces, so I
> >>> guess you'd have to have a policy where you'd stick to a namespace and if
> >>> you require something that someone else is porting, just stub it out for
> >>> later.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >>> >wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > What was your strategy for upgrading? Just getting a list of all the svn
> >>> > changes between 3.0.3 tag and 3.6? I'm terrible with SVN, but is there an
> >>> > easy way to compare the tags? (I feel like there must be)
> >>> >
> >>> > > Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:02:33 -0700
> >>> > > Subject: Re: 3.6
> >>> > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> >>> > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I used 2.9.4 as a base. Some files were so bad, though, that I ported
> >>> > them
> >>> > > from scratch.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> >>> geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >>> > >wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > As 3.0.3 is more or less ready to release, I want to talk quickly
> >>> about
> >>> > > > 3.6. For 3.0.3 Chris did a herculean job creating the initial code
> >>> > base -
> >>> > > > Chris, did you take the java code and port it all? or did you use
> >>> 2.9.4
> >>> > > > and update the code base?
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
Re: 3.6
Posted by Christopher Currens <cu...@gmail.com>.
Oh wait. Nevermind...it looks like I did, at least in the 3.0.3
branch. Hmm, we actually have quite a few changes that are present
only in 3.0.3, that should probably be merged into trunk. Should we
merge all changes in now or after we release? Either way, I strongly
dislike merging in SVN...ugh
What was that you were saying about git, Itamar? :)
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Christopher Currens
<cu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Prescott,
>
> We had decided to update the scripts/version information for 3.0.3 a
> while back, and I just realized I did all of the work and never
> committed it. Yikes. I thought I did, but I must have been
> distracted when I was doing it, and never actually completed it.
> We're still waiting on the Spatial stuff right, so I can get this in
> before release? I don't think it will affect the build/packaging
> steps.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Christopher
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com> wrote:
>> This is why they invented git :)
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/compare/5261b571...e4402c22c
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Christopher Currens <
>> currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not much of an SVN guy myself, so what I wound up doing was pulling
>>> down the two branches and used windiff on the actual directories. I could
>>> quickly see which files were added, removed, changed, or untouched. I
>>> guess you could do the same things with SVN probably, but I don't know how
>>> or if it is a painless process or not.
>>>
>>> The biggest thing would be having multiple people working on and dividing
>>> up the work. A lot of times, you have classes that span namespaces, so I
>>> guess you'd have to have a policy where you'd stick to a namespace and if
>>> you require something that someone else is porting, just stub it out for
>>> later.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>> > What was your strategy for upgrading? Just getting a list of all the svn
>>> > changes between 3.0.3 tag and 3.6? I'm terrible with SVN, but is there an
>>> > easy way to compare the tags? (I feel like there must be)
>>> >
>>> > > Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:02:33 -0700
>>> > > Subject: Re: 3.6
>>> > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
>>> > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>> > >
>>> > > I used 2.9.4 as a base. Some files were so bad, though, that I ported
>>> > them
>>> > > from scratch.
>>> > >
>>> > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Prescott Nasser <
>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com
>>> > >wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > As 3.0.3 is more or less ready to release, I want to talk quickly
>>> about
>>> > > > 3.6. For 3.0.3 Chris did a herculean job creating the initial code
>>> > base -
>>> > > > Chris, did you take the java code and port it all? or did you use
>>> 2.9.4
>>> > > > and update the code base?
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
Re: 3.6
Posted by Christopher Currens <cu...@gmail.com>.
Prescott,
We had decided to update the scripts/version information for 3.0.3 a
while back, and I just realized I did all of the work and never
committed it. Yikes. I thought I did, but I must have been
distracted when I was doing it, and never actually completed it.
We're still waiting on the Spatial stuff right, so I can get this in
before release? I don't think it will affect the build/packaging
steps.
Thanks,
Christopher
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com> wrote:
> This is why they invented git :)
>
> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/compare/5261b571...e4402c22c
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Christopher Currens <
> currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not much of an SVN guy myself, so what I wound up doing was pulling
>> down the two branches and used windiff on the actual directories. I could
>> quickly see which files were added, removed, changed, or untouched. I
>> guess you could do the same things with SVN probably, but I don't know how
>> or if it is a painless process or not.
>>
>> The biggest thing would be having multiple people working on and dividing
>> up the work. A lot of times, you have classes that span namespaces, so I
>> guess you'd have to have a policy where you'd stick to a namespace and if
>> you require something that someone else is porting, just stub it out for
>> later.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > What was your strategy for upgrading? Just getting a list of all the svn
>> > changes between 3.0.3 tag and 3.6? I'm terrible with SVN, but is there an
>> > easy way to compare the tags? (I feel like there must be)
>> >
>> > > Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:02:33 -0700
>> > > Subject: Re: 3.6
>> > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
>> > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>> > >
>> > > I used 2.9.4 as a base. Some files were so bad, though, that I ported
>> > them
>> > > from scratch.
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Prescott Nasser <
>> geobmx540@hotmail.com
>> > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > As 3.0.3 is more or less ready to release, I want to talk quickly
>> about
>> > > > 3.6. For 3.0.3 Chris did a herculean job creating the initial code
>> > base -
>> > > > Chris, did you take the java code and port it all? or did you use
>> 2.9.4
>> > > > and update the code base?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> >
>>
Re: 3.6
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
This is why they invented git :)
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/compare/5261b571...e4402c22c
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Christopher Currens <
currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not much of an SVN guy myself, so what I wound up doing was pulling
> down the two branches and used windiff on the actual directories. I could
> quickly see which files were added, removed, changed, or untouched. I
> guess you could do the same things with SVN probably, but I don't know how
> or if it is a painless process or not.
>
> The biggest thing would be having multiple people working on and dividing
> up the work. A lot of times, you have classes that span namespaces, so I
> guess you'd have to have a policy where you'd stick to a namespace and if
> you require something that someone else is porting, just stub it out for
> later.
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > What was your strategy for upgrading? Just getting a list of all the svn
> > changes between 3.0.3 tag and 3.6? I'm terrible with SVN, but is there an
> > easy way to compare the tags? (I feel like there must be)
> >
> > > Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:02:33 -0700
> > > Subject: Re: 3.6
> > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > >
> > > I used 2.9.4 as a base. Some files were so bad, though, that I ported
> > them
> > > from scratch.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > As 3.0.3 is more or less ready to release, I want to talk quickly
> about
> > > > 3.6. For 3.0.3 Chris did a herculean job creating the initial code
> > base -
> > > > Chris, did you take the java code and port it all? or did you use
> 2.9.4
> > > > and update the code base?
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>
Re: 3.6
Posted by Christopher Currens <cu...@gmail.com>.
I'm not much of an SVN guy myself, so what I wound up doing was pulling
down the two branches and used windiff on the actual directories. I could
quickly see which files were added, removed, changed, or untouched. I
guess you could do the same things with SVN probably, but I don't know how
or if it is a painless process or not.
The biggest thing would be having multiple people working on and dividing
up the work. A lot of times, you have classes that span namespaces, so I
guess you'd have to have a policy where you'd stick to a namespace and if
you require something that someone else is porting, just stub it out for
later.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> What was your strategy for upgrading? Just getting a list of all the svn
> changes between 3.0.3 tag and 3.6? I'm terrible with SVN, but is there an
> easy way to compare the tags? (I feel like there must be)
>
> > Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:02:33 -0700
> > Subject: Re: 3.6
> > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >
> > I used 2.9.4 as a base. Some files were so bad, though, that I ported
> them
> > from scratch.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > > As 3.0.3 is more or less ready to release, I want to talk quickly about
> > > 3.6. For 3.0.3 Chris did a herculean job creating the initial code
> base -
> > > Chris, did you take the java code and port it all? or did you use 2.9.4
> > > and update the code base?
> > >
> > >
>
>
RE: 3.6
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
I think I need to learn to google before asking silly questions:
http://www.bernzilla.com/item.php?id=613 seems compare isn't terribly difficult
> From: geobmx540@hotmail.com
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: RE: 3.6
> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:12:23 -0700
>
> What was your strategy for upgrading? Just getting a list of all the svn changes between 3.0.3 tag and 3.6? I'm terrible with SVN, but is there an easy way to compare the tags? (I feel like there must be)
>
> > Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:02:33 -0700
> > Subject: Re: 3.6
> > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >
> > I used 2.9.4 as a base. Some files were so bad, though, that I ported them
> > from scratch.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > As 3.0.3 is more or less ready to release, I want to talk quickly about
> > > 3.6. For 3.0.3 Chris did a herculean job creating the initial code base -
> > > Chris, did you take the java code and port it all? or did you use 2.9.4
> > > and update the code base?
> > >
> > >
>
RE: 3.6
Posted by Ilia Nazarov <in...@colddata.com>.
Can someone guide me how to get off this distribution list?
-----Original Message-----
From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:12 PM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: RE: 3.6
What was your strategy for upgrading? Just getting a list of all the svn
changes between 3.0.3 tag and 3.6? I'm terrible with SVN, but is there an
easy way to compare the tags? (I feel like there must be)
> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:02:33 -0700
> Subject: Re: 3.6
> From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>
> I used 2.9.4 as a base. Some files were so bad, though, that I ported
them
> from scratch.
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Prescott Nasser
<ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> > As 3.0.3 is more or less ready to release, I want to talk quickly
about
> > 3.6. For 3.0.3 Chris did a herculean job creating the initial code
base -
> > Chris, did you take the java code and port it all? or did you use
2.9.4
> > and update the code base?
> >
> >
RE: 3.6
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
What was your strategy for upgrading? Just getting a list of all the svn changes between 3.0.3 tag and 3.6? I'm terrible with SVN, but is there an easy way to compare the tags? (I feel like there must be)
> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:02:33 -0700
> Subject: Re: 3.6
> From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>
> I used 2.9.4 as a base. Some files were so bad, though, that I ported them
> from scratch.
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> > As 3.0.3 is more or less ready to release, I want to talk quickly about
> > 3.6. For 3.0.3 Chris did a herculean job creating the initial code base -
> > Chris, did you take the java code and port it all? or did you use 2.9.4
> > and update the code base?
> >
> >
Re: 3.6
Posted by Christopher Currens <cu...@gmail.com>.
I used 2.9.4 as a base. Some files were so bad, though, that I ported them
from scratch.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> As 3.0.3 is more or less ready to release, I want to talk quickly about
> 3.6. For 3.0.3 Chris did a herculean job creating the initial code base -
> Chris, did you take the java code and port it all? or did you use 2.9.4
> and update the code base?
>
>