You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@lucenenet.apache.org by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> on 2007/08/11 19:13:06 UTC
Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
Hi Folks,
I just released Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 as beta. The changes in
this release is:
- Release: Apache Lucene.Net.2.1 build 002 "Beta"
- Port: Ported the "Test" code from Java to C#
- Fix: LUCENENET-47: "Make up for Constansts.cs"
- Fix: LUCENENET-48 "Clone method of SegmentInfos.cs does'nt copy
local fields/variables."
- Fix: LUCENENET-50 "Improvement for FSDirectory."
- Fix: LUCENENET-52 "IndexFileDeleter in svn trunk"
- Fix: LUCENENET-53 "SegmentsInfos.GetCurrentSegmentGeneration works
incorrectly"
- Issues: A number of NUnit tests are failing.
The major change is the port of the "Test" code from Java to C#. As
expected, there are a lot of failed tests, 261 out of 629. Some of those
are due to port issues in the test code itself while others are issues in
the core code and I'm sure many are around a common defect. Wherever the
issue is, we have to fix them.
If you can help, get the latest code from SVN, build and run NUnit test.
Look at the failed tests and start debugging. Once you have a fix, submit a
patch. If you don't know how to submit a patch, an email with a fix will do
to. However you submit a fix, do explain what test it is fixing and the
effected file, class and method.
Best regards,
-- George
RE: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
Posted by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>.
Thanks Patrick. "t" was left over and should have been removed as it is
removed from the Java version too. I committed a new version of
StopAnalyzer.cs to take care of this defect.
-- George
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Burrows [mailto:pburrows@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 10:21 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
>
> By the way, if that is the correct fix, then changing this
> line in Analysis.StopAnalyzer.cs
>
>
> public static readonly System.String[] ENGLISH_STOP_WORDS =
> new System.
> String[]{"a", "an", "and", "are", "as", "at", "be", "but",
> "by", "for", "if", "in", "into", "is", "it", "no", "not",
> "of", "on", "or", "such", "t", "that", "the", "their",
> "then", "there", "these", "they", "this", "to", "was",
> "will", "with"}; to
>
>
> public static readonly System.String[] ENGLISH_STOP_WORDS =
> new System.
> String[]{"a", "an", "and", "are", "as", "at", "be", "but",
> "by", "for", "if", "in", "into", "is", "it", "no", "not",
> "of", "on", "or", "such", "that", "the", "their", "then",
> "there", "these", "they", "this", "to", "was", "will", "with"};
>
> causes that test to pass.
>
>
> On 8/11/07, Patrick Burrows <pb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey George:
> >
> > Since this is my first attempt at a bug fix, I figure I would just
> > write up everything about it and see what the correct
> course is to correct it:
> >
> > The first error that NUnit reports is that the TestStandard test is
> > failing. It is failing on this line:
> >
> >
> > AssertAnalyzesTo(a,
> > "t-com", new System.String []{"t", "com"}); And the reason
> this line
> > is failing, ultimately, is because "t" is a stop word and
> the Next()
> > method in StopFilter.cs has this line:
> >
> > if
> > (!stopWords.Contains(termText))
> >
> > return token; The comments in TestStandard() regarding this line
> > say
> > this:
> >
> >
> > // t and s had been stopwords in Lucene <= 2.0, which made it
> > impossible
> >
> > // to correctly search for these terms:
> > It seems simple enough to remove "t" from the list of stop
> words. But
> > is this the correct way to fix the issue? Was there a deeper reason
> > that made "t" have to be in the list of stop words that
> should also be
> > checked? Am I thinking too much about it? :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/11/07, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Joe,
> > >
> > > It is a merge, so it make sense (and life easier) to fix the
> > > existing NUnit issues before we move on. Sorry, for not
> making this
> > > clear.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > -- George
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Joe Shaw [mailto:joe@joeshaw.org]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 7:35 PM
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Cc: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 8/11/07, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> > > > > I agree, and I see little value to have a full release of 2.1.
> > > > > However, before we start working on 2.2, we should fix the
> > > > > existing known issues with
> > > > > 2.1 that NUnit tests has exposed; doing so will make the
> > > > transition to
> > > > > 2.2 must easier. If we take this path, then we can
> leave 2.1 in
> > > > > a "non-supported" mode and move on to 2.2. Does
> everyone agree?
> > > >
> > > > When new versions of Lucene.Net made, are they merges of the
> > > > changes from the previous Java version (converted
> somehow), or are
> > > > they totally new conversions with some of the .Net-isms
> merged in?
> > > > If the former, this definitely makes sense. If the latter, I
> > > > would think it makes more sense to skip 2.1 entirely.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, moving forward on either front is positive news.
> > > > Keep up the good work. :)
> > > >
> > > > Joe
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -
> > P
>
>
>
>
> --
> -
> P
>
Re: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
Posted by Patrick Burrows <pb...@gmail.com>.
By the way, if that is the correct fix, then changing this line in
Analysis.StopAnalyzer.cs
public static readonly System.String[] ENGLISH_STOP_WORDS = new System.
String[]{"a", "an", "and", "are", "as", "at", "be", "but", "by", "for", "if",
"in", "into", "is", "it", "no", "not", "of", "on", "or", "such", "t", "that",
"the", "their", "then", "there", "these", "they", "this", "to", "was",
"will", "with"};
to
public static readonly System.String[] ENGLISH_STOP_WORDS = new System.
String[]{"a", "an", "and", "are", "as", "at", "be", "but", "by", "for", "if",
"in", "into", "is", "it", "no", "not", "of", "on", "or", "such", "that",
"the", "their", "then", "there", "these", "they", "this", "to", "was",
"will", "with"};
causes that test to pass.
On 8/11/07, Patrick Burrows <pb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey George:
>
> Since this is my first attempt at a bug fix, I figure I would just write
> up everything about it and see what the correct course is to correct it:
>
> The first error that NUnit reports is that the TestStandard test is
> failing. It is failing on this line:
>
>
> AssertAnalyzesTo(a,
> "t-com", new System.String []{"t", "com"});
> And the reason this line is failing, ultimately, is because "t" is a stop
> word and the Next() method in StopFilter.cs has this line:
>
> if
> (!stopWords.Contains(termText))
>
> return token; The comments in TestStandard() regarding this line say
> this:
>
>
> // t and s had been stopwords in Lucene <= 2.0, which made it impossible
>
> // to correctly search for these terms:
> It seems simple enough to remove "t" from the list of stop words. But is
> this the correct way to fix the issue? Was there a deeper reason that made
> "t" have to be in the list of stop words that should also be checked? Am I
> thinking too much about it? :-)
>
>
>
> On 8/11/07, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > It is a merge, so it make sense (and life easier) to fix the existing
> > NUnit
> > issues before we move on. Sorry, for not making this clear.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- George
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joe Shaw [mailto:joe@joeshaw.org]
> > > Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 7:35 PM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 8/11/07, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> > > > I agree, and I see little value to have a full release of 2.1.
> > > > However, before we start working on 2.2, we should fix the existing
> > > > known issues with
> > > > 2.1 that NUnit tests has exposed; doing so will make the
> > > transition to
> > > > 2.2 must easier. If we take this path, then we can leave 2.1 in a
> > > > "non-supported" mode and move on to 2.2. Does everyone agree?
> > >
> > > When new versions of Lucene.Net made, are they merges of the
> > > changes from the previous Java version (converted somehow),
> > > or are they totally new conversions with some of the
> > > .Net-isms merged in? If the former, this definitely makes
> > > sense. If the latter, I would think it makes more sense to
> > > skip 2.1 entirely.
> > >
> > > In any case, moving forward on either front is positive news.
> > > Keep up the good work. :)
> > >
> > > Joe
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> -
> P
--
-
P
Re: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
Posted by Patrick Burrows <pb...@gmail.com>.
Hey George:
Since this is my first attempt at a bug fix, I figure I would just write up
everything about it and see what the correct course is to correct it:
The first error that NUnit reports is that the TestStandard test is failing.
It is failing on this line:
AssertAnalyzesTo(a, "t-com", new System.String[]{"t", "com"});
And the reason this line is failing, ultimately, is because "t" is a stop
word and the Next() method in StopFilter.cs has this line:
if (!stopWords.Contains(termText))
return token;
The comments in TestStandard() regarding this line say this:
// t and s had been stopwords in Lucene <= 2.0, which made it impossible
// to correctly search for these terms:
It seems simple enough to remove "t" from the list of stop words. But is
this the correct way to fix the issue? Was there a deeper reason that made
"t" have to be in the list of stop words that should also be checked? Am I
thinking too much about it? :-)
On 8/11/07, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> It is a merge, so it make sense (and life easier) to fix the existing
> NUnit
> issues before we move on. Sorry, for not making this clear.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Shaw [mailto:joe@joeshaw.org]
> > Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 7:35 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 8/11/07, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> > > I agree, and I see little value to have a full release of 2.1.
> > > However, before we start working on 2.2, we should fix the existing
> > > known issues with
> > > 2.1 that NUnit tests has exposed; doing so will make the
> > transition to
> > > 2.2 must easier. If we take this path, then we can leave 2.1 in a
> > > "non-supported" mode and move on to 2.2. Does everyone agree?
> >
> > When new versions of Lucene.Net made, are they merges of the
> > changes from the previous Java version (converted somehow),
> > or are they totally new conversions with some of the
> > .Net-isms merged in? If the former, this definitely makes
> > sense. If the latter, I would think it makes more sense to
> > skip 2.1 entirely.
> >
> > In any case, moving forward on either front is positive news.
> > Keep up the good work. :)
> >
> > Joe
> >
>
>
--
-
P
RE: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
Posted by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>.
Hi Joe,
It is a merge, so it make sense (and life easier) to fix the existing NUnit
issues before we move on. Sorry, for not making this clear.
Regards,
-- George
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Shaw [mailto:joe@joeshaw.org]
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 7:35 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
>
> Hi,
>
> On 8/11/07, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> > I agree, and I see little value to have a full release of 2.1.
> > However, before we start working on 2.2, we should fix the existing
> > known issues with
> > 2.1 that NUnit tests has exposed; doing so will make the
> transition to
> > 2.2 must easier. If we take this path, then we can leave 2.1 in a
> > "non-supported" mode and move on to 2.2. Does everyone agree?
>
> When new versions of Lucene.Net made, are they merges of the
> changes from the previous Java version (converted somehow),
> or are they totally new conversions with some of the
> .Net-isms merged in? If the former, this definitely makes
> sense. If the latter, I would think it makes more sense to
> skip 2.1 entirely.
>
> In any case, moving forward on either front is positive news.
> Keep up the good work. :)
>
> Joe
>
RE: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
Posted by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>.
Hi Joe,
It is a merge, so it make sense (and life easier) to fix the existing NUnit
issues before we move on. Sorry, for not making this clear.
Regards,
-- George
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Shaw [mailto:joe@joeshaw.org]
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 7:35 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
>
> Hi,
>
> On 8/11/07, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> > I agree, and I see little value to have a full release of 2.1.
> > However, before we start working on 2.2, we should fix the existing
> > known issues with
> > 2.1 that NUnit tests has exposed; doing so will make the
> transition to
> > 2.2 must easier. If we take this path, then we can leave 2.1 in a
> > "non-supported" mode and move on to 2.2. Does everyone agree?
>
> When new versions of Lucene.Net made, are they merges of the
> changes from the previous Java version (converted somehow),
> or are they totally new conversions with some of the
> .Net-isms merged in? If the former, this definitely makes
> sense. If the latter, I would think it makes more sense to
> skip 2.1 entirely.
>
> In any case, moving forward on either front is positive news.
> Keep up the good work. :)
>
> Joe
>
Re: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
Posted by Joe Shaw <jo...@joeshaw.org>.
Hi,
On 8/11/07, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> I agree, and I see little value to have a full release of 2.1. However,
> before we start working on 2.2, we should fix the existing known issues with
> 2.1 that NUnit tests has exposed; doing so will make the transition to 2.2
> must easier. If we take this path, then we can leave 2.1 in a
> "non-supported" mode and move on to 2.2. Does everyone agree?
When new versions of Lucene.Net made, are they merges of the changes
from the previous Java version (converted somehow), or are they
totally new conversions with some of the .Net-isms merged in? If the
former, this definitely makes sense. If the latter, I would think it
makes more sense to skip 2.1 entirely.
In any case, moving forward on either front is positive news. Keep up
the good work. :)
Joe
Re: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
Posted by Joe Shaw <jo...@joeshaw.org>.
Hi,
On 8/11/07, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> I agree, and I see little value to have a full release of 2.1. However,
> before we start working on 2.2, we should fix the existing known issues with
> 2.1 that NUnit tests has exposed; doing so will make the transition to 2.2
> must easier. If we take this path, then we can leave 2.1 in a
> "non-supported" mode and move on to 2.2. Does everyone agree?
When new versions of Lucene.Net made, are they merges of the changes
from the previous Java version (converted somehow), or are they
totally new conversions with some of the .Net-isms merged in? If the
former, this definitely makes sense. If the latter, I would think it
makes more sense to skip 2.1 entirely.
In any case, moving forward on either front is positive news. Keep up
the good work. :)
Joe
RE: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
Posted by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>.
Hi Joe,
I agree, and I see little value to have a full release of 2.1. However,
before we start working on 2.2, we should fix the existing known issues with
2.1 that NUnit tests has exposed; doing so will make the transition to 2.2
must easier. If we take this path, then we can leave 2.1 in a
"non-supported" mode and move on to 2.2. Does everyone agree?
Regards,
-- George
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Shaw [mailto:joe@joeshaw.org]
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 5:03 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
>
> Hi George,
>
> On 8/11/07, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> > I just released Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 as beta.
>
> Given that Java Lucene 2.2 was released in June, and 2.3 is
> expected out fairly soon, does it make sense to skip porting
> 2.1 and go straight to 2.2? Would that substantially set
> things back, or speed things up?
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
RE: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
Posted by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>.
Hi Joe,
I agree, and I see little value to have a full release of 2.1. However,
before we start working on 2.2, we should fix the existing known issues with
2.1 that NUnit tests has exposed; doing so will make the transition to 2.2
must easier. If we take this path, then we can leave 2.1 in a
"non-supported" mode and move on to 2.2. Does everyone agree?
Regards,
-- George
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Shaw [mailto:joe@joeshaw.org]
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 5:03 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
>
> Hi George,
>
> On 8/11/07, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> > I just released Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 as beta.
>
> Given that Java Lucene 2.2 was released in June, and 2.3 is
> expected out fairly soon, does it make sense to skip porting
> 2.1 and go straight to 2.2? Would that substantially set
> things back, or speed things up?
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
Re: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
Posted by Joe Shaw <jo...@joeshaw.org>.
Hi George,
On 8/11/07, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> I just released Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 as beta.
Given that Java Lucene 2.2 was released in June, and 2.3 is expected
out fairly soon, does it make sense to skip porting 2.1 and go
straight to 2.2? Would that substantially set things back, or speed
things up?
Thanks,
Joe
Re: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
Posted by Patrick Burrows <pb...@gmail.com>.
nevermind. just noticed there are two sets of files.
On 8/11/07, Patrick Burrows <pb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> does it matter if the work is done in vs2k5? I just noticed all the
> project files are vs2k3.
>
> On 8/11/07, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > I just released Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 as beta. The changes in
> > this release is:
> > - Release: Apache Lucene.Net.2.1 build 002 "Beta"
> > - Port: Ported the "Test" code from Java to C#
> > - Fix: LUCENENET-47: "Make up for Constansts.cs"
> > - Fix: LUCENENET-48 "Clone method of SegmentInfos.cs does'nt copy
> > local fields/variables."
> > - Fix: LUCENENET-50 "Improvement for FSDirectory."
> > - Fix: LUCENENET-52 "IndexFileDeleter in svn trunk"
> > - Fix: LUCENENET-53 " SegmentsInfos.GetCurrentSegmentGenerationworks
> > incorrectly"
> > - Issues: A number of NUnit tests are failing.
> >
> > The major change is the port of the "Test" code from Java to C#. As
> > expected, there are a lot of failed tests, 261 out of 629. Some of
> > those
> > are due to port issues in the test code itself while others are issues
> > in
> > the core code and I'm sure many are around a common defect. Wherever
> > the
> > issue is, we have to fix them.
> >
> > If you can help, get the latest code from SVN, build and run NUnit test.
> >
> > Look at the failed tests and start debugging. Once you have a fix,
> > submit a
> > patch. If you don't know how to submit a patch, an email with a fix
> > will do
> > to. However you submit a fix, do explain what test it is fixing and the
> >
> > effected file, class and method.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > -- George
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> -
> P
--
-
P
Re: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
Posted by Patrick Burrows <pb...@gmail.com>.
does it matter if the work is done in vs2k5? I just noticed all the project
files are vs2k3.
On 8/11/07, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I just released Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 as beta. The changes in
> this release is:
> - Release: Apache Lucene.Net.2.1 build 002 "Beta"
> - Port: Ported the "Test" code from Java to C#
> - Fix: LUCENENET-47: "Make up for Constansts.cs"
> - Fix: LUCENENET-48 "Clone method of SegmentInfos.cs does'nt copy
> local fields/variables."
> - Fix: LUCENENET-50 "Improvement for FSDirectory."
> - Fix: LUCENENET-52 "IndexFileDeleter in svn trunk"
> - Fix: LUCENENET-53 "SegmentsInfos.GetCurrentSegmentGenerationworks
> incorrectly"
> - Issues: A number of NUnit tests are failing.
>
> The major change is the port of the "Test" code from Java to C#. As
> expected, there are a lot of failed tests, 261 out of 629. Some of those
> are due to port issues in the test code itself while others are issues in
> the core code and I'm sure many are around a common defect. Wherever the
> issue is, we have to fix them.
>
> If you can help, get the latest code from SVN, build and run NUnit test.
> Look at the failed tests and start debugging. Once you have a fix, submit
> a
> patch. If you don't know how to submit a patch, an email with a fix will
> do
> to. However you submit a fix, do explain what test it is fixing and the
> effected file, class and method.
>
> Best regards,
>
> -- George
>
>
--
-
P
Re: Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 "Beta" released
Posted by Joe Shaw <jo...@joeshaw.org>.
Hi George,
On 8/11/07, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> I just released Apache Lucene.Net 2.1 build 002 as beta.
Given that Java Lucene 2.2 was released in June, and 2.3 is expected
out fairly soon, does it make sense to skip porting 2.1 and go
straight to 2.2? Would that substantially set things back, or speed
things up?
Thanks,
Joe