You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@lucenenet.apache.org by David Wan <t-...@microsoft.com> on 2014/07/23 03:01:04 UTC
Lucene.net 4.8.0
Hi,
We have been working on a port of Lucene 4.8.0 for the past few months and was wondering what the process was for contributing back into the main Lucene.net project. It is currently a rough work in progress and we have about 1518 unit tests passing out of 1971. Our progress has slowed down in the past few weeks and we really hope to get some help from the community to help us fix all the issues and push out this release.
You can check out our latest source at: https://github.com/russelltrupiano/lucene.net-1
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
David
Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Posted by michael herndon <mh...@michaelherndon.com>.
Its a continuation of an older experimental effort attempting to offering a
portable class library version of Lucene.Net.
Branches Lucene.Net_4e and Lucene.Net.WP7 were put on hold as portable
projects that targeted WP7 would have required significant amounts of work,
including recreating a significant part of System.Threading.
The PCL branch was meant to be to the continuation of that effort that was
brought up again in the thread labeled, Windows RT / WP8 Version, almost a
year ago.
I started using the PCL branch with experimental items to avoid cluttering
branch_4x.
* Lucene 5.0 code
* Vnext projects that build PCL, K10, .NET 4.5.1 binaries.
* newer build scripts that will be easier to manage.
* stubbing out a nightly build strategy.
* experimenting writing docs with markdown.
* cleaning up warnings, code analytics, and adding code documentation and
documenting code intent.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>
wrote:
> Michael, what is this PCL branch? I don't recall you ever brought it up
> here?
>
> --
>
> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> Freelance Developer & Consultant
> Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:43 AM, michael herndon <
> mherndon@michaelherndon.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi David,
> >
> > Thank you to you and others for your efforts on this!
> >
> > If Lucene.Net had a formal contribution process, its been lost over time.
> > I've recently written one up that is specific to only to the PCL / VNext
> > Branch. https://github.com/apache/lucene.net/tree/pcl. I'll just
> basically
> > follow in the footsteps of that.
> >
> > The Apache Foundation wants to ensure that committers, people who has
> > read/write access to the project, verifies all the patches are applied
> > under the apache 2.0 license and is granted to the foundation. So in
> order
> > to meet that expectation, please do the following.
> >
> > I've created a jira ticket:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-545.
> >
> > - Create one more commit from your git repo.
> > - Change the acknowledgement.txt file to list all the people who
> > worked on this and that the code changes is submitted under the
> > apache 2.0
> > license.
> > - Then commit the change with LUCENENET-545 in the message.
> > - Send a pull request to the lucene.net repo on github.
> > - Have the all contributors send a short reply to this e-mail to
> verify
> > they all agree to submit the code changes under the apache 2.0 license
> > as
> > stated in the commit.
> >
> >
> > When that is done, I'll update the ticket to reference the pull request
> and
> > e-mails. Then a merge can be started to pull in order to pull in the new
> > changes.
> >
> > One of the committers will then merge code into the repo. I wouldn't be
> > surprise if there is chatter on this thread or another on how committers
> > want specifics of the merge to be handled, however, getting the
> > aknowledgements should get us most of the way there.
> >
> > In mean time, if you or others all are going to continue to work on this
> as
> > time permits, consider becoming a project committer. Most apache projects
> > want a ticket per patch/pull-request submitted and that may become
> > cumbersome over time.
> >
> > -Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:01 PM, David Wan <t-...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We have been working on a port of Lucene 4.8.0 for the past few months
> > and
> > > was wondering what the process was for contributing back into the main
> > > Lucene.net project. It is currently a rough work in progress and we
> have
> > > about 1518 unit tests passing out of 1971. Our progress has slowed down
> > in
> > > the past few weeks and we really hope to get some help from the
> community
> > > to help us fix all the issues and push out this release.
> > >
> > > You can check out our latest source at:
> > > https://github.com/russelltrupiano/lucene.net-1
> > >
> > > Any help would be greatly appreciated!
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > David
> > >
> >
>
Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
Michael, what is this PCL branch? I don't recall you ever brought it up
here?
--
Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:43 AM, michael herndon <
mherndon@michaelherndon.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Thank you to you and others for your efforts on this!
>
> If Lucene.Net had a formal contribution process, its been lost over time.
> I've recently written one up that is specific to only to the PCL / VNext
> Branch. https://github.com/apache/lucene.net/tree/pcl. I'll just basically
> follow in the footsteps of that.
>
> The Apache Foundation wants to ensure that committers, people who has
> read/write access to the project, verifies all the patches are applied
> under the apache 2.0 license and is granted to the foundation. So in order
> to meet that expectation, please do the following.
>
> I've created a jira ticket:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-545.
>
> - Create one more commit from your git repo.
> - Change the acknowledgement.txt file to list all the people who
> worked on this and that the code changes is submitted under the
> apache 2.0
> license.
> - Then commit the change with LUCENENET-545 in the message.
> - Send a pull request to the lucene.net repo on github.
> - Have the all contributors send a short reply to this e-mail to verify
> they all agree to submit the code changes under the apache 2.0 license
> as
> stated in the commit.
>
>
> When that is done, I'll update the ticket to reference the pull request and
> e-mails. Then a merge can be started to pull in order to pull in the new
> changes.
>
> One of the committers will then merge code into the repo. I wouldn't be
> surprise if there is chatter on this thread or another on how committers
> want specifics of the merge to be handled, however, getting the
> aknowledgements should get us most of the way there.
>
> In mean time, if you or others all are going to continue to work on this as
> time permits, consider becoming a project committer. Most apache projects
> want a ticket per patch/pull-request submitted and that may become
> cumbersome over time.
>
> -Michael
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:01 PM, David Wan <t-...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have been working on a port of Lucene 4.8.0 for the past few months
> and
> > was wondering what the process was for contributing back into the main
> > Lucene.net project. It is currently a rough work in progress and we have
> > about 1518 unit tests passing out of 1971. Our progress has slowed down
> in
> > the past few weeks and we really hope to get some help from the community
> > to help us fix all the issues and push out this release.
> >
> > You can check out our latest source at:
> > https://github.com/russelltrupiano/lucene.net-1
> >
> > Any help would be greatly appreciated!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
>
Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
I'm waiting on confirmation from Prescott and Troy on that.
I suspect that bug to be related to threading issues. I'm currently chasing
down another issue with CheckRandomData tests, hopefully I get that fixed
soon as it affects many other tests.
--
Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:57 AM, David Wan <t-...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The ICLA and CCLA have both been acknowledged and filed. I will try to
> look at the code and figure out where the bug is.
>
> Thanks,
> Defu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 8:55 PM
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
>
> Ok, I started work on your branch. My goal at this point is to verify all
> the core code and all core tests have been ported, and then to make sure
> they are all running and passing.
>
> Until we get confirmation about the CLAs you can track my work here:
> https://github.com/synhershko/lucene.net/tree/Lucene.Net_4.8.0
>
> There are several core tests which are failing due to some bug with
> SortedSetDocValuesWriter. The Debug.Assert statement in
> SortedSetDocValuesWriter:203 is triggered. Can you have a look see if you
> can figure that one out? it seems like some code there wasn't ported in
> full.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
>
> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> Freelance Developer & Consultant Author of RavenDB in Action <
> http://manning.com/synhershko/>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Russell Trupiano <t-...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Itamar,
> >
> > As the primary contributor to the changes in this port I can answer
> > some of your questions.
> >
> > The port I have been working on has been built basically from the
> > ground up. I have borrowed some classes and details from the 3.0.3
> > release and also from Paul Irwin's work on his branch. As of right now
> > There are 1840 of the ~2100 unit tests from the Java release passing.
> > My work has been entirely on the core portion and I have not touched
> > the contrib files at all. There are a few problem files I have had
> > trouble getting to build so as of now they are just ignored in Visual
> > Studio (These are test files though).
> >
> > I'm sure there will be pieces from the source files that can be
> > improved, as I have had a limited amount of time to get this working
> > for my internship. Feel free to reach out to me with any further
> questions.
> >
> > Russell
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com]
> > On Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:00 PM
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Cc: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
> >
> > Hi David, and welcome.
> >
> > Thanks for your efforts and willingness to contribute. As Stefan
> > mentioned there probably will be some paperwork involved before we can
> > do anything with this, but I don't suspect there will be real problem.
> >
> > I haven't reviewed your branch yet, so forgive me if answers to some
> > of the items below are evident by looking at it.
> >
> > To better understand the current status of your work and plan our next
> > steps with it, can you please describe in short what you did there,
> > and whether there are parts you know you haven't worked on? (contrib
> > packages for example? or less commonly used parts of the core?). Any
> > info you could give us would be helpful - especially if there are
> > known gaps in the implementation.
> >
> > The way I see this merged in is after the CLA is signed we continue
> > working on a branch until we are satisfied with it, and then we can
> > test, cleanup, create nugets and stage a release.
> >
> > I think serious discussion needs to be made between us committers with
> > regards to the 4.3 branch Paul Irwin has worked on recently. Some of
> > his work I was able to review and can confirm is good and stable, plus
> > I think they are already using it in production. Michael and I chipped
> > in a bit there as well to rearrange some stuff. The biggest
> > disadvantage of the 4.3 branch is it's very outdated already (Java
> > Lucene is currently at 4.9), and it has almost no tests to verify it.
> > I believe the question is mainly - do we want to jump from 3.0 to 4.8 or
> do we want to have a 4.3 version as well?
> >
> > There's also the issue of doubling the efforts - basically most of
> > your work has already been done and probably tested to some extent by
> > Paul unless you were aware of his efforts and built on them. Whether
> > we will try and release 4.3 or not, I think we should verify 4.3 and
> > 4.8 in tandem to make sure we don't lose any of the work done.
> >
> > I'll be more than happy to jump in on this and help wherever necessary.
> > I've been planning on doing this for a while now on the 4.3 branch but
> > being a freelancer I always find myself pulled in to other (paid)
> projects.
> > Having more people to collaborate with will definitely help focus on
> this.
> > That is to say I'm happy to be the coordinator of this merge.
> >
> > Let's continue this technical discussion on the dev mailing list
> > please, it belongs there.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > Freelance Developer & Consultant Author of RavenDB in Action <
> > http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:37 AM, David Wan <t-...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the feedback. We will be submitting a pull request at the
> > > end of this week since we will be making more changes for the next
> > > few
> > days.
> > > Just to clarify, we are working on this project on company time and
> > > we have approval to release it for open source with the Apache license.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > David
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Moray McConnachie [mailto:mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:30 AM
> > > To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: Lucene.net 4.8.0
> > >
> > > Any reason this is on the user list not the dev list? Seems like a
> > > dev discussion to me now...
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
> > > Sent: 23 July 2014 16:02
> > > To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
> > >
> > > On 2014-07-23, michael herndon wrote:
> > >
> > > >> But do we require tickets for other pull requests? There is
> > > >> nothing that would force us to do so.
> > >
> > > > Force? No. But, given our track record, a github pull request
> > > > without a ticket may get missed for months on end. Committers get
> > > > notified when a jira ticket is created or an e-mail is sent on the
> > list.
> > >
> > > We can get emails for pull requests as well - I even think we
> > > already do but may be wrong.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I'm far removed from questioning the desire to have JIRA
> > > tickets, I'm fine with it. Just wanted to be sure you know it is
> > > not something the ASF burdens us with.
> > >
> > > >> I agree having a JIRA ticket for this case is a good idea so we
> > > >> can reuse it if we feel we need to perform an IP-clearance
> > > >> process.[1]
> > >
> > > > As for the size... its going to be a decent sized diff. Would
> > > > they need to fill out the icla?
> > > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> > >
> > > If this was a project undertaken by a bunch of people during their
> > > spare time then a few ICLAs are in order, if it was created on
> > > company time of a shared employer we'd better ask for a software
> > > grant by the
> > employer.
> > >
> > > Stefan
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > > Disclaimer
> > >
> > > This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged.
> > > If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or
> > > disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
> > >
> > > Oxford Analytica Ltd
> > > Registered in England: No. 1196703
> > > 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> > > United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Posted by Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
Hi Troy,
When the ICLA was filed, there was no mention of the project that was interested in the filing of the document. The (optional) notify project: line was left blank.
In future, please ask your contributors to fill that line so the project can be notified automatically.
The ack was sent August 6:
> Dear Defu Wan,
>
> This message acknowledges receipt of your ICLA, which has been filed in the Apache Software Foundation records.
>
> If you have been invited as a committer, please advise the project PMC that your ICLA has been filed.
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> -- James Carman
> Assistant Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
I still have an issue with the CCLA. We have on file from Microsoft Corporation a CCLA dated 2/8/2012 signed by Alexander Stojanovic, General Manager. The latest CCLA is signed by (unreadable) Principle SDE Lead. I'm not sure of the authority of (unreadable) to commit Microsoft to the terms of the CCLA.
Can you help clear this confusion?
Thanks,
Craig
On Aug 7, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Troy Howard wrote:
> Hi David/Russell/secretary@a.o:
>
> Could one of you forward on the confirmation of this CLA to either me (thoward@apache.org) or Prescott (pnasser@apache.org)?
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:57 PM, David Wan <t-...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The ICLA and CCLA have both been acknowledged and filed. I will try to look at the code and figure out where the bug is.
>
> Thanks,
> Defu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 8:55 PM
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
>
> Ok, I started work on your branch. My goal at this point is to verify all the core code and all core tests have been ported, and then to make sure they are all running and passing.
>
> Until we get confirmation about the CLAs you can track my work here:
> https://github.com/synhershko/lucene.net/tree/Lucene.Net_4.8.0
>
> There are several core tests which are failing due to some bug with SortedSetDocValuesWriter. The Debug.Assert statement in
> SortedSetDocValuesWriter:203 is triggered. Can you have a look see if you can figure that one out? it seems like some code there wasn't ported in full.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
>
> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> Freelance Developer & Consultant Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Russell Trupiano <t-...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Itamar,
> >
> > As the primary contributor to the changes in this port I can answer
> > some of your questions.
> >
> > The port I have been working on has been built basically from the
> > ground up. I have borrowed some classes and details from the 3.0.3
> > release and also from Paul Irwin's work on his branch. As of right now
> > There are 1840 of the ~2100 unit tests from the Java release passing.
> > My work has been entirely on the core portion and I have not touched
> > the contrib files at all. There are a few problem files I have had
> > trouble getting to build so as of now they are just ignored in Visual
> > Studio (These are test files though).
> >
> > I'm sure there will be pieces from the source files that can be
> > improved, as I have had a limited amount of time to get this working
> > for my internship. Feel free to reach out to me with any further questions.
> >
> > Russell
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com]
> > On Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:00 PM
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Cc: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
> >
> > Hi David, and welcome.
> >
> > Thanks for your efforts and willingness to contribute. As Stefan
> > mentioned there probably will be some paperwork involved before we can
> > do anything with this, but I don't suspect there will be real problem.
> >
> > I haven't reviewed your branch yet, so forgive me if answers to some
> > of the items below are evident by looking at it.
> >
> > To better understand the current status of your work and plan our next
> > steps with it, can you please describe in short what you did there,
> > and whether there are parts you know you haven't worked on? (contrib
> > packages for example? or less commonly used parts of the core?). Any
> > info you could give us would be helpful - especially if there are
> > known gaps in the implementation.
> >
> > The way I see this merged in is after the CLA is signed we continue
> > working on a branch until we are satisfied with it, and then we can
> > test, cleanup, create nugets and stage a release.
> >
> > I think serious discussion needs to be made between us committers with
> > regards to the 4.3 branch Paul Irwin has worked on recently. Some of
> > his work I was able to review and can confirm is good and stable, plus
> > I think they are already using it in production. Michael and I chipped
> > in a bit there as well to rearrange some stuff. The biggest
> > disadvantage of the 4.3 branch is it's very outdated already (Java
> > Lucene is currently at 4.9), and it has almost no tests to verify it.
> > I believe the question is mainly - do we want to jump from 3.0 to 4.8 or do we want to have a 4.3 version as well?
> >
> > There's also the issue of doubling the efforts - basically most of
> > your work has already been done and probably tested to some extent by
> > Paul unless you were aware of his efforts and built on them. Whether
> > we will try and release 4.3 or not, I think we should verify 4.3 and
> > 4.8 in tandem to make sure we don't lose any of the work done.
> >
> > I'll be more than happy to jump in on this and help wherever necessary.
> > I've been planning on doing this for a while now on the 4.3 branch but
> > being a freelancer I always find myself pulled in to other (paid) projects.
> > Having more people to collaborate with will definitely help focus on this.
> > That is to say I'm happy to be the coordinator of this merge.
> >
> > Let's continue this technical discussion on the dev mailing list
> > please, it belongs there.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > Freelance Developer & Consultant Author of RavenDB in Action <
> > http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:37 AM, David Wan <t-...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the feedback. We will be submitting a pull request at the
> > > end of this week since we will be making more changes for the next
> > > few
> > days.
> > > Just to clarify, we are working on this project on company time and
> > > we have approval to release it for open source with the Apache license.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > David
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Moray McConnachie [mailto:mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:30 AM
> > > To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: Lucene.net 4.8.0
> > >
> > > Any reason this is on the user list not the dev list? Seems like a
> > > dev discussion to me now...
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
> > > Sent: 23 July 2014 16:02
> > > To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
> > >
> > > On 2014-07-23, michael herndon wrote:
> > >
> > > >> But do we require tickets for other pull requests? There is
> > > >> nothing that would force us to do so.
> > >
> > > > Force? No. But, given our track record, a github pull request
> > > > without a ticket may get missed for months on end. Committers get
> > > > notified when a jira ticket is created or an e-mail is sent on the
> > list.
> > >
> > > We can get emails for pull requests as well - I even think we
> > > already do but may be wrong.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I'm far removed from questioning the desire to have JIRA
> > > tickets, I'm fine with it. Just wanted to be sure you know it is
> > > not something the ASF burdens us with.
> > >
> > > >> I agree having a JIRA ticket for this case is a good idea so we
> > > >> can reuse it if we feel we need to perform an IP-clearance
> > > >> process.[1]
> > >
> > > > As for the size... its going to be a decent sized diff. Would
> > > > they need to fill out the icla?
> > > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> > >
> > > If this was a project undertaken by a bunch of people during their
> > > spare time then a few ICLAs are in order, if it was created on
> > > company time of a shared employer we'd better ask for a software
> > > grant by the
> > employer.
> > >
> > > Stefan
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > > Disclaimer
> > >
> > > This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged.
> > > If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or
> > > disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
> > >
> > > Oxford Analytica Ltd
> > > Registered in England: No. 1196703
> > > 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> > > United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Posted by Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>.
Hi David/Russell/secretary@a.o:
Could one of you forward on the confirmation of this CLA to either me (
thoward@apache.org) or Prescott (pnasser@apache.org)?
Thanks,
Troy
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:57 PM, David Wan <t-...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The ICLA and CCLA have both been acknowledged and filed. I will try to
> look at the code and figure out where the bug is.
>
> Thanks,
> Defu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 8:55 PM
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
>
> Ok, I started work on your branch. My goal at this point is to verify all
> the core code and all core tests have been ported, and then to make sure
> they are all running and passing.
>
> Until we get confirmation about the CLAs you can track my work here:
> https://github.com/synhershko/lucene.net/tree/Lucene.Net_4.8.0
>
> There are several core tests which are failing due to some bug with
> SortedSetDocValuesWriter. The Debug.Assert statement in
> SortedSetDocValuesWriter:203 is triggered. Can you have a look see if you
> can figure that one out? it seems like some code there wasn't ported in
> full.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
>
> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> Freelance Developer & Consultant Author of RavenDB in Action <
> http://manning.com/synhershko/>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Russell Trupiano <t-...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Itamar,
> >
> > As the primary contributor to the changes in this port I can answer
> > some of your questions.
> >
> > The port I have been working on has been built basically from the
> > ground up. I have borrowed some classes and details from the 3.0.3
> > release and also from Paul Irwin's work on his branch. As of right now
> > There are 1840 of the ~2100 unit tests from the Java release passing.
> > My work has been entirely on the core portion and I have not touched
> > the contrib files at all. There are a few problem files I have had
> > trouble getting to build so as of now they are just ignored in Visual
> > Studio (These are test files though).
> >
> > I'm sure there will be pieces from the source files that can be
> > improved, as I have had a limited amount of time to get this working
> > for my internship. Feel free to reach out to me with any further
> questions.
> >
> > Russell
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com]
> > On Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:00 PM
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Cc: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
> >
> > Hi David, and welcome.
> >
> > Thanks for your efforts and willingness to contribute. As Stefan
> > mentioned there probably will be some paperwork involved before we can
> > do anything with this, but I don't suspect there will be real problem.
> >
> > I haven't reviewed your branch yet, so forgive me if answers to some
> > of the items below are evident by looking at it.
> >
> > To better understand the current status of your work and plan our next
> > steps with it, can you please describe in short what you did there,
> > and whether there are parts you know you haven't worked on? (contrib
> > packages for example? or less commonly used parts of the core?). Any
> > info you could give us would be helpful - especially if there are
> > known gaps in the implementation.
> >
> > The way I see this merged in is after the CLA is signed we continue
> > working on a branch until we are satisfied with it, and then we can
> > test, cleanup, create nugets and stage a release.
> >
> > I think serious discussion needs to be made between us committers with
> > regards to the 4.3 branch Paul Irwin has worked on recently. Some of
> > his work I was able to review and can confirm is good and stable, plus
> > I think they are already using it in production. Michael and I chipped
> > in a bit there as well to rearrange some stuff. The biggest
> > disadvantage of the 4.3 branch is it's very outdated already (Java
> > Lucene is currently at 4.9), and it has almost no tests to verify it.
> > I believe the question is mainly - do we want to jump from 3.0 to 4.8 or
> do we want to have a 4.3 version as well?
> >
> > There's also the issue of doubling the efforts - basically most of
> > your work has already been done and probably tested to some extent by
> > Paul unless you were aware of his efforts and built on them. Whether
> > we will try and release 4.3 or not, I think we should verify 4.3 and
> > 4.8 in tandem to make sure we don't lose any of the work done.
> >
> > I'll be more than happy to jump in on this and help wherever necessary.
> > I've been planning on doing this for a while now on the 4.3 branch but
> > being a freelancer I always find myself pulled in to other (paid)
> projects.
> > Having more people to collaborate with will definitely help focus on
> this.
> > That is to say I'm happy to be the coordinator of this merge.
> >
> > Let's continue this technical discussion on the dev mailing list
> > please, it belongs there.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > Freelance Developer & Consultant Author of RavenDB in Action <
> > http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:37 AM, David Wan <t-...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the feedback. We will be submitting a pull request at the
> > > end of this week since we will be making more changes for the next
> > > few
> > days.
> > > Just to clarify, we are working on this project on company time and
> > > we have approval to release it for open source with the Apache license.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > David
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Moray McConnachie [mailto:mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:30 AM
> > > To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: Lucene.net 4.8.0
> > >
> > > Any reason this is on the user list not the dev list? Seems like a
> > > dev discussion to me now...
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
> > > Sent: 23 July 2014 16:02
> > > To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
> > >
> > > On 2014-07-23, michael herndon wrote:
> > >
> > > >> But do we require tickets for other pull requests? There is
> > > >> nothing that would force us to do so.
> > >
> > > > Force? No. But, given our track record, a github pull request
> > > > without a ticket may get missed for months on end. Committers get
> > > > notified when a jira ticket is created or an e-mail is sent on the
> > list.
> > >
> > > We can get emails for pull requests as well - I even think we
> > > already do but may be wrong.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I'm far removed from questioning the desire to have JIRA
> > > tickets, I'm fine with it. Just wanted to be sure you know it is
> > > not something the ASF burdens us with.
> > >
> > > >> I agree having a JIRA ticket for this case is a good idea so we
> > > >> can reuse it if we feel we need to perform an IP-clearance
> > > >> process.[1]
> > >
> > > > As for the size... its going to be a decent sized diff. Would
> > > > they need to fill out the icla?
> > > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> > >
> > > If this was a project undertaken by a bunch of people during their
> > > spare time then a few ICLAs are in order, if it was created on
> > > company time of a shared employer we'd better ask for a software
> > > grant by the
> > employer.
> > >
> > > Stefan
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > > Disclaimer
> > >
> > > This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged.
> > > If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or
> > > disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
> > >
> > > Oxford Analytica Ltd
> > > Registered in England: No. 1196703
> > > 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> > > United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> >
>
RE: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Posted by David Wan <t-...@microsoft.com>.
Hi all,
The ICLA and CCLA have both been acknowledged and filed. I will try to look at the code and figure out where the bug is.
Thanks,
Defu
-----Original Message-----
From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 8:55 PM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Ok, I started work on your branch. My goal at this point is to verify all the core code and all core tests have been ported, and then to make sure they are all running and passing.
Until we get confirmation about the CLAs you can track my work here:
https://github.com/synhershko/lucene.net/tree/Lucene.Net_4.8.0
There are several core tests which are failing due to some bug with SortedSetDocValuesWriter. The Debug.Assert statement in
SortedSetDocValuesWriter:203 is triggered. Can you have a look see if you can figure that one out? it seems like some code there wasn't ported in full.
Thanks
--
Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> Freelance Developer & Consultant Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Russell Trupiano <t-...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> Hello Itamar,
>
> As the primary contributor to the changes in this port I can answer
> some of your questions.
>
> The port I have been working on has been built basically from the
> ground up. I have borrowed some classes and details from the 3.0.3
> release and also from Paul Irwin's work on his branch. As of right now
> There are 1840 of the ~2100 unit tests from the Java release passing.
> My work has been entirely on the core portion and I have not touched
> the contrib files at all. There are a few problem files I have had
> trouble getting to build so as of now they are just ignored in Visual
> Studio (These are test files though).
>
> I'm sure there will be pieces from the source files that can be
> improved, as I have had a limited amount of time to get this working
> for my internship. Feel free to reach out to me with any further questions.
>
> Russell
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com]
> On Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:00 PM
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Cc: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
>
> Hi David, and welcome.
>
> Thanks for your efforts and willingness to contribute. As Stefan
> mentioned there probably will be some paperwork involved before we can
> do anything with this, but I don't suspect there will be real problem.
>
> I haven't reviewed your branch yet, so forgive me if answers to some
> of the items below are evident by looking at it.
>
> To better understand the current status of your work and plan our next
> steps with it, can you please describe in short what you did there,
> and whether there are parts you know you haven't worked on? (contrib
> packages for example? or less commonly used parts of the core?). Any
> info you could give us would be helpful - especially if there are
> known gaps in the implementation.
>
> The way I see this merged in is after the CLA is signed we continue
> working on a branch until we are satisfied with it, and then we can
> test, cleanup, create nugets and stage a release.
>
> I think serious discussion needs to be made between us committers with
> regards to the 4.3 branch Paul Irwin has worked on recently. Some of
> his work I was able to review and can confirm is good and stable, plus
> I think they are already using it in production. Michael and I chipped
> in a bit there as well to rearrange some stuff. The biggest
> disadvantage of the 4.3 branch is it's very outdated already (Java
> Lucene is currently at 4.9), and it has almost no tests to verify it.
> I believe the question is mainly - do we want to jump from 3.0 to 4.8 or do we want to have a 4.3 version as well?
>
> There's also the issue of doubling the efforts - basically most of
> your work has already been done and probably tested to some extent by
> Paul unless you were aware of his efforts and built on them. Whether
> we will try and release 4.3 or not, I think we should verify 4.3 and
> 4.8 in tandem to make sure we don't lose any of the work done.
>
> I'll be more than happy to jump in on this and help wherever necessary.
> I've been planning on doing this for a while now on the 4.3 branch but
> being a freelancer I always find myself pulled in to other (paid) projects.
> Having more people to collaborate with will definitely help focus on this.
> That is to say I'm happy to be the coordinator of this merge.
>
> Let's continue this technical discussion on the dev mailing list
> please, it belongs there.
>
> --
>
> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> Freelance Developer & Consultant Author of RavenDB in Action <
> http://manning.com/synhershko/>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:37 AM, David Wan <t-...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the feedback. We will be submitting a pull request at the
> > end of this week since we will be making more changes for the next
> > few
> days.
> > Just to clarify, we are working on this project on company time and
> > we have approval to release it for open source with the Apache license.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Moray McConnachie [mailto:mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:30 AM
> > To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Lucene.net 4.8.0
> >
> > Any reason this is on the user list not the dev list? Seems like a
> > dev discussion to me now...
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
> > Sent: 23 July 2014 16:02
> > To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
> >
> > On 2014-07-23, michael herndon wrote:
> >
> > >> But do we require tickets for other pull requests? There is
> > >> nothing that would force us to do so.
> >
> > > Force? No. But, given our track record, a github pull request
> > > without a ticket may get missed for months on end. Committers get
> > > notified when a jira ticket is created or an e-mail is sent on the
> list.
> >
> > We can get emails for pull requests as well - I even think we
> > already do but may be wrong.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm far removed from questioning the desire to have JIRA
> > tickets, I'm fine with it. Just wanted to be sure you know it is
> > not something the ASF burdens us with.
> >
> > >> I agree having a JIRA ticket for this case is a good idea so we
> > >> can reuse it if we feel we need to perform an IP-clearance
> > >> process.[1]
> >
> > > As for the size... its going to be a decent sized diff. Would
> > > they need to fill out the icla?
> > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> >
> > If this was a project undertaken by a bunch of people during their
> > spare time then a few ICLAs are in order, if it was created on
> > company time of a shared employer we'd better ask for a software
> > grant by the
> employer.
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > Disclaimer
> >
> > This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged.
> > If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or
> > disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
> >
> > Oxford Analytica Ltd
> > Registered in England: No. 1196703
> > 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> > United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
Ok, I started work on your branch. My goal at this point is to verify all
the core code and all core tests have been ported, and then to make sure
they are all running and passing.
Until we get confirmation about the CLAs you can track my work here:
https://github.com/synhershko/lucene.net/tree/Lucene.Net_4.8.0
There are several core tests which are failing due to some bug with
SortedSetDocValuesWriter. The Debug.Assert statement in
SortedSetDocValuesWriter:203 is triggered. Can you have a look see if you
can figure that one out? it seems like some code there wasn't ported in
full.
Thanks
--
Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Russell Trupiano <t-...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> Hello Itamar,
>
> As the primary contributor to the changes in this port I can answer some
> of your questions.
>
> The port I have been working on has been built basically from the ground
> up. I have borrowed some classes and details from the 3.0.3 release and
> also from Paul Irwin's work on his branch. As of right now There are 1840
> of the ~2100 unit tests from the Java release passing. My work has been
> entirely on the core portion and I have not touched the contrib files at
> all. There are a few problem files I have had trouble getting to build so
> as of now they are just ignored in Visual Studio (These are test files
> though).
>
> I'm sure there will be pieces from the source files that can be improved,
> as I have had a limited amount of time to get this working for my
> internship. Feel free to reach out to me with any further questions.
>
> Russell
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:00 PM
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Cc: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
>
> Hi David, and welcome.
>
> Thanks for your efforts and willingness to contribute. As Stefan mentioned
> there probably will be some paperwork involved before we can do anything
> with this, but I don't suspect there will be real problem.
>
> I haven't reviewed your branch yet, so forgive me if answers to some of
> the items below are evident by looking at it.
>
> To better understand the current status of your work and plan our next
> steps with it, can you please describe in short what you did there, and
> whether there are parts you know you haven't worked on? (contrib packages
> for example? or less commonly used parts of the core?). Any info you could
> give us would be helpful - especially if there are known gaps in the
> implementation.
>
> The way I see this merged in is after the CLA is signed we continue
> working on a branch until we are satisfied with it, and then we can test,
> cleanup, create nugets and stage a release.
>
> I think serious discussion needs to be made between us committers with
> regards to the 4.3 branch Paul Irwin has worked on recently. Some of his
> work I was able to review and can confirm is good and stable, plus I think
> they are already using it in production. Michael and I chipped in a bit
> there as well to rearrange some stuff. The biggest disadvantage of the 4.3
> branch is it's very outdated already (Java Lucene is currently at 4.9), and
> it has almost no tests to verify it. I believe the question is mainly - do
> we want to jump from 3.0 to 4.8 or do we want to have a 4.3 version as well?
>
> There's also the issue of doubling the efforts - basically most of your
> work has already been done and probably tested to some extent by Paul
> unless you were aware of his efforts and built on them. Whether we will try
> and release 4.3 or not, I think we should verify 4.3 and 4.8 in tandem to
> make sure we don't lose any of the work done.
>
> I'll be more than happy to jump in on this and help wherever necessary.
> I've been planning on doing this for a while now on the 4.3 branch but
> being a freelancer I always find myself pulled in to other (paid) projects.
> Having more people to collaborate with will definitely help focus on this.
> That is to say I'm happy to be the coordinator of this merge.
>
> Let's continue this technical discussion on the dev mailing list please,
> it belongs there.
>
> --
>
> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> Freelance Developer & Consultant Author of RavenDB in Action <
> http://manning.com/synhershko/>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:37 AM, David Wan <t-...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the feedback. We will be submitting a pull request at the
> > end of this week since we will be making more changes for the next few
> days.
> > Just to clarify, we are working on this project on company time and we
> > have approval to release it for open source with the Apache license.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Moray McConnachie [mailto:mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:30 AM
> > To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Lucene.net 4.8.0
> >
> > Any reason this is on the user list not the dev list? Seems like a dev
> > discussion to me now...
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
> > Sent: 23 July 2014 16:02
> > To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
> >
> > On 2014-07-23, michael herndon wrote:
> >
> > >> But do we require tickets for other pull requests? There is
> > >> nothing that would force us to do so.
> >
> > > Force? No. But, given our track record, a github pull request
> > > without a ticket may get missed for months on end. Committers get
> > > notified when a jira ticket is created or an e-mail is sent on the
> list.
> >
> > We can get emails for pull requests as well - I even think we already
> > do but may be wrong.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm far removed from questioning the desire to have JIRA
> > tickets, I'm fine with it. Just wanted to be sure you know it is not
> > something the ASF burdens us with.
> >
> > >> I agree having a JIRA ticket for this case is a good idea so we can
> > >> reuse it if we feel we need to perform an IP-clearance process.[1]
> >
> > > As for the size... its going to be a decent sized diff. Would they
> > > need to fill out the icla?
> > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> >
> > If this was a project undertaken by a bunch of people during their
> > spare time then a few ICLAs are in order, if it was created on company
> > time of a shared employer we'd better ask for a software grant by the
> employer.
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > Disclaimer
> >
> > This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged.
> > If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or
> > disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
> >
> > Oxford Analytica Ltd
> > Registered in England: No. 1196703
> > 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> > United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
RE: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Posted by Russell Trupiano <t-...@microsoft.com>.
Hello Itamar,
As the primary contributor to the changes in this port I can answer some of your questions.
The port I have been working on has been built basically from the ground up. I have borrowed some classes and details from the 3.0.3 release and also from Paul Irwin's work on his branch. As of right now There are 1840 of the ~2100 unit tests from the Java release passing. My work has been entirely on the core portion and I have not touched the contrib files at all. There are a few problem files I have had trouble getting to build so as of now they are just ignored in Visual Studio (These are test files though).
I'm sure there will be pieces from the source files that can be improved, as I have had a limited amount of time to get this working for my internship. Feel free to reach out to me with any further questions.
Russell
-----Original Message-----
From: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhershko@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:00 PM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Cc: user@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Hi David, and welcome.
Thanks for your efforts and willingness to contribute. As Stefan mentioned there probably will be some paperwork involved before we can do anything with this, but I don't suspect there will be real problem.
I haven't reviewed your branch yet, so forgive me if answers to some of the items below are evident by looking at it.
To better understand the current status of your work and plan our next steps with it, can you please describe in short what you did there, and whether there are parts you know you haven't worked on? (contrib packages for example? or less commonly used parts of the core?). Any info you could give us would be helpful - especially if there are known gaps in the implementation.
The way I see this merged in is after the CLA is signed we continue working on a branch until we are satisfied with it, and then we can test, cleanup, create nugets and stage a release.
I think serious discussion needs to be made between us committers with regards to the 4.3 branch Paul Irwin has worked on recently. Some of his work I was able to review and can confirm is good and stable, plus I think they are already using it in production. Michael and I chipped in a bit there as well to rearrange some stuff. The biggest disadvantage of the 4.3 branch is it's very outdated already (Java Lucene is currently at 4.9), and it has almost no tests to verify it. I believe the question is mainly - do we want to jump from 3.0 to 4.8 or do we want to have a 4.3 version as well?
There's also the issue of doubling the efforts - basically most of your work has already been done and probably tested to some extent by Paul unless you were aware of his efforts and built on them. Whether we will try and release 4.3 or not, I think we should verify 4.3 and 4.8 in tandem to make sure we don't lose any of the work done.
I'll be more than happy to jump in on this and help wherever necessary.
I've been planning on doing this for a while now on the 4.3 branch but being a freelancer I always find myself pulled in to other (paid) projects.
Having more people to collaborate with will definitely help focus on this.
That is to say I'm happy to be the coordinator of this merge.
Let's continue this technical discussion on the dev mailing list please, it belongs there.
--
Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> Freelance Developer & Consultant Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:37 AM, David Wan <t-...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. We will be submitting a pull request at the
> end of this week since we will be making more changes for the next few days.
> Just to clarify, we are working on this project on company time and we
> have approval to release it for open source with the Apache license.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moray McConnachie [mailto:mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:30 AM
> To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene.net 4.8.0
>
> Any reason this is on the user list not the dev list? Seems like a dev
> discussion to me now...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
> Sent: 23 July 2014 16:02
> To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
>
> On 2014-07-23, michael herndon wrote:
>
> >> But do we require tickets for other pull requests? There is
> >> nothing that would force us to do so.
>
> > Force? No. But, given our track record, a github pull request
> > without a ticket may get missed for months on end. Committers get
> > notified when a jira ticket is created or an e-mail is sent on the list.
>
> We can get emails for pull requests as well - I even think we already
> do but may be wrong.
>
> Anyway, I'm far removed from questioning the desire to have JIRA
> tickets, I'm fine with it. Just wanted to be sure you know it is not
> something the ASF burdens us with.
>
> >> I agree having a JIRA ticket for this case is a good idea so we can
> >> reuse it if we feel we need to perform an IP-clearance process.[1]
>
> > As for the size... its going to be a decent sized diff. Would they
> > need to fill out the icla?
> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>
> If this was a project undertaken by a bunch of people during their
> spare time then a few ICLAs are in order, if it was created on company
> time of a shared employer we'd better ask for a software grant by the employer.
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer
>
> This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged.
> If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or
> disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
>
> Oxford Analytica Ltd
> Registered in England: No. 1196703
> 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
Hi David, and welcome.
Thanks for your efforts and willingness to contribute. As Stefan mentioned
there probably will be some paperwork involved before we can do anything
with this, but I don't suspect there will be real problem.
I haven't reviewed your branch yet, so forgive me if answers to some of the
items below are evident by looking at it.
To better understand the current status of your work and plan our next
steps with it, can you please describe in short what you did there, and
whether there are parts you know you haven't worked on? (contrib packages
for example? or less commonly used parts of the core?). Any info you could
give us would be helpful - especially if there are known gaps in the
implementation.
The way I see this merged in is after the CLA is signed we continue working
on a branch until we are satisfied with it, and then we can test, cleanup,
create nugets and stage a release.
I think serious discussion needs to be made between us committers with
regards to the 4.3 branch Paul Irwin has worked on recently. Some of his
work I was able to review and can confirm is good and stable, plus I think
they are already using it in production. Michael and I chipped in a bit
there as well to rearrange some stuff. The biggest disadvantage of the 4.3
branch is it's very outdated already (Java Lucene is currently at 4.9), and
it has almost no tests to verify it. I believe the question is mainly - do
we want to jump from 3.0 to 4.8 or do we want to have a 4.3 version as well?
There's also the issue of doubling the efforts - basically most of your
work has already been done and probably tested to some extent by Paul
unless you were aware of his efforts and built on them. Whether we will try
and release 4.3 or not, I think we should verify 4.3 and 4.8 in tandem to
make sure we don't lose any of the work done.
I'll be more than happy to jump in on this and help wherever necessary.
I've been planning on doing this for a while now on the 4.3 branch but
being a freelancer I always find myself pulled in to other (paid) projects.
Having more people to collaborate with will definitely help focus on this.
That is to say I'm happy to be the coordinator of this merge.
Let's continue this technical discussion on the dev mailing list please, it
belongs there.
--
Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:37 AM, David Wan <t-...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. We will be submitting a pull request at the end
> of this week since we will be making more changes for the next few days.
> Just to clarify, we are working on this project on company time and we have
> approval to release it for open source with the Apache license.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moray McConnachie [mailto:mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:30 AM
> To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene.net 4.8.0
>
> Any reason this is on the user list not the dev list? Seems like a dev
> discussion to me now...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
> Sent: 23 July 2014 16:02
> To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
>
> On 2014-07-23, michael herndon wrote:
>
> >> But do we require tickets for other pull requests? There is nothing
> >> that would force us to do so.
>
> > Force? No. But, given our track record, a github pull request without
> > a ticket may get missed for months on end. Committers get notified
> > when a jira ticket is created or an e-mail is sent on the list.
>
> We can get emails for pull requests as well - I even think we already do
> but may be wrong.
>
> Anyway, I'm far removed from questioning the desire to have JIRA tickets,
> I'm fine with it. Just wanted to be sure you know it is not something the
> ASF burdens us with.
>
> >> I agree having a JIRA ticket for this case is a good idea so we can
> >> reuse it if we feel we need to perform an IP-clearance process.[1]
>
> > As for the size... its going to be a decent sized diff. Would they
> > need to fill out the icla?
> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>
> If this was a project undertaken by a bunch of people during their spare
> time then a few ICLAs are in order, if it was created on company time of a
> shared employer we'd better ask for a software grant by the employer.
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer
>
> This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. If
> this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or disclose
> them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
>
> Oxford Analytica Ltd
> Registered in England: No. 1196703
> 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
Hi David, and welcome.
Thanks for your efforts and willingness to contribute. As Stefan mentioned
there probably will be some paperwork involved before we can do anything
with this, but I don't suspect there will be real problem.
I haven't reviewed your branch yet, so forgive me if answers to some of the
items below are evident by looking at it.
To better understand the current status of your work and plan our next
steps with it, can you please describe in short what you did there, and
whether there are parts you know you haven't worked on? (contrib packages
for example? or less commonly used parts of the core?). Any info you could
give us would be helpful - especially if there are known gaps in the
implementation.
The way I see this merged in is after the CLA is signed we continue working
on a branch until we are satisfied with it, and then we can test, cleanup,
create nugets and stage a release.
I think serious discussion needs to be made between us committers with
regards to the 4.3 branch Paul Irwin has worked on recently. Some of his
work I was able to review and can confirm is good and stable, plus I think
they are already using it in production. Michael and I chipped in a bit
there as well to rearrange some stuff. The biggest disadvantage of the 4.3
branch is it's very outdated already (Java Lucene is currently at 4.9), and
it has almost no tests to verify it. I believe the question is mainly - do
we want to jump from 3.0 to 4.8 or do we want to have a 4.3 version as well?
There's also the issue of doubling the efforts - basically most of your
work has already been done and probably tested to some extent by Paul
unless you were aware of his efforts and built on them. Whether we will try
and release 4.3 or not, I think we should verify 4.3 and 4.8 in tandem to
make sure we don't lose any of the work done.
I'll be more than happy to jump in on this and help wherever necessary.
I've been planning on doing this for a while now on the 4.3 branch but
being a freelancer I always find myself pulled in to other (paid) projects.
Having more people to collaborate with will definitely help focus on this.
That is to say I'm happy to be the coordinator of this merge.
Let's continue this technical discussion on the dev mailing list please, it
belongs there.
--
Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:37 AM, David Wan <t-...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. We will be submitting a pull request at the end
> of this week since we will be making more changes for the next few days.
> Just to clarify, we are working on this project on company time and we have
> approval to release it for open source with the Apache license.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moray McConnachie [mailto:mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:30 AM
> To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene.net 4.8.0
>
> Any reason this is on the user list not the dev list? Seems like a dev
> discussion to me now...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
> Sent: 23 July 2014 16:02
> To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
>
> On 2014-07-23, michael herndon wrote:
>
> >> But do we require tickets for other pull requests? There is nothing
> >> that would force us to do so.
>
> > Force? No. But, given our track record, a github pull request without
> > a ticket may get missed for months on end. Committers get notified
> > when a jira ticket is created or an e-mail is sent on the list.
>
> We can get emails for pull requests as well - I even think we already do
> but may be wrong.
>
> Anyway, I'm far removed from questioning the desire to have JIRA tickets,
> I'm fine with it. Just wanted to be sure you know it is not something the
> ASF burdens us with.
>
> >> I agree having a JIRA ticket for this case is a good idea so we can
> >> reuse it if we feel we need to perform an IP-clearance process.[1]
>
> > As for the size... its going to be a decent sized diff. Would they
> > need to fill out the icla?
> > http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>
> If this was a project undertaken by a bunch of people during their spare
> time then a few ICLAs are in order, if it was created on company time of a
> shared employer we'd better ask for a software grant by the employer.
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer
>
> This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. If
> this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or disclose
> them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
>
> Oxford Analytica Ltd
> Registered in England: No. 1196703
> 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
RE: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Posted by David Wan <t-...@microsoft.com>.
Thanks for the feedback. We will be submitting a pull request at the end of this week since we will be making more changes for the next few days. Just to clarify, we are working on this project on company time and we have approval to release it for open source with the Apache license.
Thanks,
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Moray McConnachie [mailto:mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:30 AM
To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Any reason this is on the user list not the dev list? Seems like a dev discussion to me now...
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
Sent: 23 July 2014 16:02
To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
On 2014-07-23, michael herndon wrote:
>> But do we require tickets for other pull requests? There is nothing
>> that would force us to do so.
> Force? No. But, given our track record, a github pull request without
> a ticket may get missed for months on end. Committers get notified
> when a jira ticket is created or an e-mail is sent on the list.
We can get emails for pull requests as well - I even think we already do but may be wrong.
Anyway, I'm far removed from questioning the desire to have JIRA tickets, I'm fine with it. Just wanted to be sure you know it is not something the ASF burdens us with.
>> I agree having a JIRA ticket for this case is a good idea so we can
>> reuse it if we feel we need to perform an IP-clearance process.[1]
> As for the size... its going to be a decent sized diff. Would they
> need to fill out the icla?
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
If this was a project undertaken by a bunch of people during their spare time then a few ICLAs are in order, if it was created on company time of a shared employer we'd better ask for a software grant by the employer.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer
This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
Oxford Analytica Ltd
Registered in England: No. 1196703
5 Alfred Street, Oxford
United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
---------------------------------------------------------
RE: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Posted by Moray McConnachie <mm...@oxford-analytica.com>.
Any reason this is on the user list not the dev list? Seems like a dev discussion to me now...
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
Sent: 23 July 2014 16:02
To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
On 2014-07-23, michael herndon wrote:
>> But do we require tickets for other pull requests? There is nothing
>> that would force us to do so.
> Force? No. But, given our track record, a github pull request without
> a ticket may get missed for months on end. Committers get notified
> when a jira ticket is created or an e-mail is sent on the list.
We can get emails for pull requests as well - I even think we already do but may be wrong.
Anyway, I'm far removed from questioning the desire to have JIRA tickets, I'm fine with it. Just wanted to be sure you know it is not something the ASF burdens us with.
>> I agree having a JIRA ticket for this case is a good idea so we can
>> reuse it if we feel we need to perform an IP-clearance process.[1]
> As for the size... its going to be a decent sized diff. Would they
> need to fill out the icla?
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
If this was a project undertaken by a bunch of people during their spare time then a few ICLAs are in order, if it was created on company time of a shared employer we'd better ask for a software grant by the employer.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer
This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
Oxford Analytica Ltd
Registered in England: No. 1196703
5 Alfred Street, Oxford
United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
---------------------------------------------------------
Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2014-07-23, michael herndon wrote:
>> But do we require tickets for other pull requests? There is nothing
>> that would force us to do so.
> Force? No. But, given our track record, a github pull request without a
> ticket may get missed for months on end. Committers get notified when a
> jira ticket is created or an e-mail is sent on the list.
We can get emails for pull requests as well - I even think we already do
but may be wrong.
Anyway, I'm far removed from questioning the desire to have JIRA
tickets, I'm fine with it. Just wanted to be sure you know it is not
something the ASF burdens us with.
>> I agree having a JIRA ticket for this case is a good idea so we can
>> reuse it if we feel we need to perform an IP-clearance process.[1]
> As for the size... its going to be a decent sized diff. Would they need to
> fill out the icla?
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
If this was a project undertaken by a bunch of people during their spare
time then a few ICLAs are in order, if it was created on company time of
a shared employer we'd better ask for a software grant by the employer.
Stefan
Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Posted by michael herndon <mh...@michaelherndon.com>.
I agree having a JIRA ticket for this case is a good idea so we can
reuse it if we feel we need to perform an IP-clearance process.[1]
But do we require tickets for other pull requests? There is nothing
that would force us to do so.
Force? No. But, given our track record, a github pull request without a
ticket may get missed for months on end. Committers get notified when a
jira ticket is created or an e-mail is sent on the list. Filing a ticket,
even if its a broad one, would most likely guarantee a response.
I don't like the extra steps.. so any ideas on this that would prevent
losing out on community work without extra steps would be very appreciated.
As for the size... its going to be a decent sized diff. Would they need to
fill out the icla?
http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
-M
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2014-07-23, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> > [welcome to the dev list, David]
>
> ouch. The user list, obviuosly :-)
>
Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2014-07-23, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> [welcome to the dev list, David]
ouch. The user list, obviuosly :-)
Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
[welcome to the dev list, David]
On 2014-07-23, michael herndon wrote:
> - Have the all contributors send a short reply to this e-mail to verify
> they all agree to submit the code changes under the apache 2.0 license as
> stated in the commit.
Depending on the size of the patch this may not be enough, for big
changes we may need a bit more of paperwork. We'll see that when we see
the diff :-)
> Most apache projects want a ticket per patch/pull-request submitted
I agree having a JIRA ticket for this case is a good idea so we can
reuse it if we feel we need to perform an IP-clearance process.[1]
But do we require tickets for other pull requests? There is nothing
that would force us to do so.
Stefan
[1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/#grants and
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0
Posted by michael herndon <mh...@michaelherndon.com>.
Hi David,
Thank you to you and others for your efforts on this!
If Lucene.Net had a formal contribution process, its been lost over time.
I've recently written one up that is specific to only to the PCL / VNext
Branch. https://github.com/apache/lucene.net/tree/pcl. I'll just basically
follow in the footsteps of that.
The Apache Foundation wants to ensure that committers, people who has
read/write access to the project, verifies all the patches are applied
under the apache 2.0 license and is granted to the foundation. So in order
to meet that expectation, please do the following.
I've created a jira ticket:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-545.
- Create one more commit from your git repo.
- Change the acknowledgement.txt file to list all the people who
worked on this and that the code changes is submitted under the
apache 2.0
license.
- Then commit the change with LUCENENET-545 in the message.
- Send a pull request to the lucene.net repo on github.
- Have the all contributors send a short reply to this e-mail to verify
they all agree to submit the code changes under the apache 2.0 license as
stated in the commit.
When that is done, I'll update the ticket to reference the pull request and
e-mails. Then a merge can be started to pull in order to pull in the new
changes.
One of the committers will then merge code into the repo. I wouldn't be
surprise if there is chatter on this thread or another on how committers
want specifics of the merge to be handled, however, getting the
aknowledgements should get us most of the way there.
In mean time, if you or others all are going to continue to work on this as
time permits, consider becoming a project committer. Most apache projects
want a ticket per patch/pull-request submitted and that may become
cumbersome over time.
-Michael
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:01 PM, David Wan <t-...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have been working on a port of Lucene 4.8.0 for the past few months and
> was wondering what the process was for contributing back into the main
> Lucene.net project. It is currently a rough work in progress and we have
> about 1518 unit tests passing out of 1971. Our progress has slowed down in
> the past few weeks and we really hope to get some help from the community
> to help us fix all the issues and push out this release.
>
> You can check out our latest source at:
> https://github.com/russelltrupiano/lucene.net-1
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated!
>
> Thanks,
> David
>