You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to user@lucenenet.apache.org by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com> on 2012/07/21 21:20:37 UTC

RE: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

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

RE: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Lucene.Net+3.0.3

Please update the wiki and the changes.TXT file with any changes you're aware of - I will take some time this weekend to comb through everything and add whatever is missing

----------------------------------------
> From: geobmx540@hotmail.com
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:13:12 -0700
>
> I don't think we ever fully adopted the style guidelines, probably not a terrible discussion to have. As for this release, I think that by lazy consensus we should branch the trunk at the end of this weekend (say monday), and begin the process of cutting a release. - my $.02 below
>
>
> > 1) Usage of "this" prefix when not required.
> >
> > this.blah = blah; <- required this.
> > this.aBlah = blah; <- optional this, which Re# doesn't like.
> >
> > I'm assuming consistency wins here, and 'this.' stays, but wanted to double check.
>
> I'd error with consistency
>
>
> >
> > 2) Using different conventions for fields and parameters\local vars.
> >
> > blah vs. _blah
> >
>
> > Combined with 1, Re# wants (and I'm personally accustomed to):
> >
> > _blah = blah;
> >
>
>
> For private variables _ is ok, for anything else, don't use _ as it's not CLR compliant
>
>
> > However, that seems to violate the adopted style.
> >
> > 3) Full qualification of type names.
> >
> > Re # wants to remove redundant namespace qualifiers. Leave them or remove them?
> >
>
> I try to remove them
>
> > 4) Removing unreferenced classes.
> >
> > Should I remove non-public unreferenced classes? The ones I've come across so far are private.
> >
>
> I'm not sure I understand - are you saying we have classes that are never used in random places? If so, I think before removing them we should have a conversation; what are they, why are they there, etc. - I'm hoping there aren't too many of these..
>
> > 5) var vs. explicit
> >
> > I know this has been brought up before, but not sure of the final disposition. FWIW, I prefer var.
> >
>
> I use var with it's plainly obvious the object var obj = new MyClass(). I usually use explicit when it's an object returned from some function that makes it unclear what the return value is:
>
>
> var items = search.GetResults();
>
> vs
>
> IList<SearchResult> items = search.GetResults(); //prefer
>
>
> >
> > There are some non-Re# issues I came across as well that look like artifacts of code generation:
> >
> > 6) Weird param names.
> >
> > Param1 vs. directory
> >
> > I assume it's okay to replace 'Param1' with something a descriptive name like 'directory'.
> >
>
> Weird - I think a rename is OK for this release (Since we're ticking up a full version number), but I believe changing param names can potentially break code. That said, I don't really think we need to change the names and push the 3.0.3 release out, and if it does in fact cause breaking changes, I'd be a little careful about how we do it going forward to 3.6.
>
> > 7) Field names that follow local variable naming conventions.
> >
> > Lots of issues related to private vars with names like i, j, k, etc. It feels like the right thing to do is to change the scope so that they go back to being local vars instead of fields. However, this requires a much more significant refactoring, and I didn't want to assume it was okay to do that.
> >
>
> I'd avoid this for now - a lot of this is a carry over from the java version and to rename all those, it starts to get a bit confusing if we have to compare java to C# and these are all changed around.
>
>
>
> > If these questions have already been answered elsewhere and I missed the documentation/FAQ/developer guide, then I apologize and would appreciate the links. Alternatively, if someone has a Re# rule config that they are willing to post somewhere, I would be glad to use it.
> >
>
> I think we talked about Re#'s rules at one point, I'll try to dig that conversation up and see where it landed. It's probably a good idea for us to build rules though.
>
> > - Zack
> >
> >
> > On Jul 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> >
> > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper and trying
> > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly, removing
> > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files left.
> > >
> > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some recent
> > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a bit more
> > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it).
> >

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Michael Herndon <mh...@wickedsoftware.net>.

if you do rename stuff other than poorly named signature parameters, its
helpful to document the java version's name and the reason for the rename.
Even for java, some of the internal naming makes the code that much harder
to understand and follow.

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:

> Excellent Idea - I'll do that monday to give you guys the weekend to do
> any last minute code cleaning you want.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 19:30:02 +0300
> > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > From: itamar@code972.com
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >
> > Prescott - we could make an RC and push it to Nuget as a PreRelease, to
> get
> > real feedback.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think we ever fully adopted the style guidelines, probably not
> a
> > > terrible discussion to have. As for this release, I think that by lazy
> > > consensus we should branch the trunk at the end of this weekend (say
> > > monday), and begin the process of cutting a release. - my $.02 below
> > >
> > >
> > > > 1) Usage of "this" prefix when not required.
> > > >
> > > > this.blah = blah; <- required this.
> > > > this.aBlah = blah; <- optional this, which Re# doesn't like.
> > > >
> > > > I'm assuming consistency wins here, and 'this.' stays, but wanted to
> > > double check.
> > >
> > > I'd error with consistency
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2) Using different conventions for fields and parameters\local vars.
> > > >
> > > > blah vs. _blah
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Combined with 1, Re# wants (and I'm personally accustomed to):
> > > >
> > > > _blah = blah;
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For private variables _ is ok, for anything else, don't use _ as it's
> not
> > > CLR compliant
> > >
> > >
> > > > However, that seems to violate the adopted style.
> > > >
> > > > 3) Full qualification of type names.
> > > >
> > > > Re # wants to remove redundant namespace qualifiers. Leave them or
> > > remove them?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I try to remove them
> > >
> > > > 4) Removing unreferenced classes.
> > > >
> > > > Should I remove non-public unreferenced classes? The ones I've come
> > > across so far are private.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I understand - are you saying we have classes that are
> never
> > > used in random places? If so, I think before removing them we should
> have a
> > > conversation; what are they, why are they there, etc. - I'm hoping
> there
> > > aren't too many of these..
> > >
> > > > 5) var vs. explicit
> > > >
> > > > I know this has been brought up before, but not sure of the final
> > > disposition. FWIW, I prefer var.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I use var with it's plainly obvious the object var obj = new
> MyClass(). I
> > > usually use explicit when it's an object returned from some function
> that
> > > makes it unclear what the return value is:
> > >
> > >
> > > var items = search.GetResults();
> > >
> > > vs
> > >
> > > IList<SearchResult> items = search.GetResults(); //prefer
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There are some non-Re# issues I came across as well that look like
> > > artifacts of code generation:
> > > >
> > > > 6) Weird param names.
> > > >
> > > > Param1 vs. directory
> > > >
> > > > I assume it's okay to replace 'Param1' with something a descriptive
> name
> > > like 'directory'.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Weird - I think a rename is OK for this release (Since we're ticking
> up a
> > > full version number), but I believe changing param names can
> potentially
> > > break code. That said, I don't really think we need to change the
> names and
> > > push the 3.0.3 release out, and if it does in fact cause breaking
> changes,
> > > I'd be a little careful about how we do it going forward to 3.6.
> > >
> > > > 7) Field names that follow local variable naming conventions.
> > > >
> > > > Lots of issues related to private vars with names like i, j, k, etc.
> It
> > > feels like the right thing to do is to change the scope so that they go
> > > back to being local vars instead of fields. However, this requires a
> much
> > > more significant refactoring, and I didn't want to assume it was okay
> to do
> > > that.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd avoid this for now - a lot of this is a carry over from the java
> > > version and to rename all those, it starts to get a bit confusing if we
> > > have to compare java to C# and these are all changed around.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > If these questions have already been answered elsewhere and I missed
> the
> > > documentation/FAQ/developer guide, then I apologize and would
> appreciate
> > > the links. Alternatively, if someone has a Re# rule config that they
> are
> > > willing to post somewhere, I would be glad to use it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think we talked about Re#'s rules at one point, I'll try to dig that
> > > conversation up and see where it landed. It's probably a good idea for
> us
> > > to build rules though.
> > >
> > > > - Zack
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Jul 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper
> and
> > > trying
> > > > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly,
> > > removing
> > > > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files
> left.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some
> > > recent
> > > > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a
> bit
> > > more
> > > > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it).
> > > >
> > >
>

RE: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.

Excellent Idea - I'll do that monday to give you guys the weekend to do any last minute code cleaning you want.


----------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 19:30:02 +0300
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: itamar@code972.com
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> Prescott - we could make an RC and push it to Nuget as a PreRelease, to get
> real feedback.
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> > I don't think we ever fully adopted the style guidelines, probably not a
> > terrible discussion to have. As for this release, I think that by lazy
> > consensus we should branch the trunk at the end of this weekend (say
> > monday), and begin the process of cutting a release. - my $.02 below
> >
> >
> > > 1) Usage of "this" prefix when not required.
> > >
> > > this.blah = blah; <- required this.
> > > this.aBlah = blah; <- optional this, which Re# doesn't like.
> > >
> > > I'm assuming consistency wins here, and 'this.' stays, but wanted to
> > double check.
> >
> > I'd error with consistency
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 2) Using different conventions for fields and parameters\local vars.
> > >
> > > blah vs. _blah
> > >
> >
> > > Combined with 1, Re# wants (and I'm personally accustomed to):
> > >
> > > _blah = blah;
> > >
> >
> >
> > For private variables _ is ok, for anything else, don't use _ as it's not
> > CLR compliant
> >
> >
> > > However, that seems to violate the adopted style.
> > >
> > > 3) Full qualification of type names.
> > >
> > > Re # wants to remove redundant namespace qualifiers. Leave them or
> > remove them?
> > >
> >
> > I try to remove them
> >
> > > 4) Removing unreferenced classes.
> > >
> > > Should I remove non-public unreferenced classes? The ones I've come
> > across so far are private.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand - are you saying we have classes that are never
> > used in random places? If so, I think before removing them we should have a
> > conversation; what are they, why are they there, etc. - I'm hoping there
> > aren't too many of these..
> >
> > > 5) var vs. explicit
> > >
> > > I know this has been brought up before, but not sure of the final
> > disposition. FWIW, I prefer var.
> > >
> >
> > I use var with it's plainly obvious the object var obj = new MyClass(). I
> > usually use explicit when it's an object returned from some function that
> > makes it unclear what the return value is:
> >
> >
> > var items = search.GetResults();
> >
> > vs
> >
> > IList<SearchResult> items = search.GetResults(); //prefer
> >
> >
> > >
> > > There are some non-Re# issues I came across as well that look like
> > artifacts of code generation:
> > >
> > > 6) Weird param names.
> > >
> > > Param1 vs. directory
> > >
> > > I assume it's okay to replace 'Param1' with something a descriptive name
> > like 'directory'.
> > >
> >
> > Weird - I think a rename is OK for this release (Since we're ticking up a
> > full version number), but I believe changing param names can potentially
> > break code. That said, I don't really think we need to change the names and
> > push the 3.0.3 release out, and if it does in fact cause breaking changes,
> > I'd be a little careful about how we do it going forward to 3.6.
> >
> > > 7) Field names that follow local variable naming conventions.
> > >
> > > Lots of issues related to private vars with names like i, j, k, etc. It
> > feels like the right thing to do is to change the scope so that they go
> > back to being local vars instead of fields. However, this requires a much
> > more significant refactoring, and I didn't want to assume it was okay to do
> > that.
> > >
> >
> > I'd avoid this for now - a lot of this is a carry over from the java
> > version and to rename all those, it starts to get a bit confusing if we
> > have to compare java to C# and these are all changed around.
> >
> >
> >
> > > If these questions have already been answered elsewhere and I missed the
> > documentation/FAQ/developer guide, then I apologize and would appreciate
> > the links. Alternatively, if someone has a Re# rule config that they are
> > willing to post somewhere, I would be glad to use it.
> > >
> >
> > I think we talked about Re#'s rules at one point, I'll try to dig that
> > conversation up and see where it landed. It's probably a good idea for us
> > to build rules though.
> >
> > > - Zack
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jul 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> > >
> > > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper and
> > trying
> > > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly,
> > removing
> > > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files left.
> > > >
> > > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some
> > recent
> > > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a bit
> > more
> > > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it).
> > >
> >

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.

Prescott - we could make an RC and push it to Nuget as a PreRelease, to get
real feedback.

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:

> I don't think we ever fully adopted the style guidelines, probably not a
> terrible discussion to have. As for this release, I think that by lazy
> consensus we should branch the trunk at the end of this weekend (say
> monday), and begin the process of cutting a release. - my $.02 below
>
>
> > 1) Usage of "this" prefix when not required.
> >
> > this.blah = blah; <- required this.
> > this.aBlah = blah; <- optional this, which Re# doesn't like.
> >
> > I'm assuming consistency wins here, and 'this.' stays, but wanted to
> double check.
>
> I'd error with consistency
>
>
> >
> > 2) Using different conventions for fields and parameters\local vars.
> >
> > blah vs. _blah
> >
>
> > Combined with 1, Re# wants (and I'm personally accustomed to):
> >
> > _blah = blah;
> >
>
>
> For private variables _ is ok, for anything else, don't use _ as it's not
> CLR compliant
>
>
> > However, that seems to violate the adopted style.
> >
> > 3) Full qualification of type names.
> >
> > Re # wants to remove redundant namespace qualifiers. Leave them or
> remove them?
> >
>
> I try to remove them
>
> > 4) Removing unreferenced classes.
> >
> > Should I remove non-public unreferenced classes? The ones I've come
> across so far are private.
> >
>
> I'm not sure I understand - are you saying we have classes that are never
> used in random places? If so, I think before removing them we should have a
> conversation; what are they, why are they there, etc. - I'm hoping there
> aren't too many of these..
>
> > 5) var vs. explicit
> >
> > I know this has been brought up before, but not sure of the final
> disposition. FWIW, I prefer var.
> >
>
> I use var with it's plainly obvious the object var obj = new MyClass(). I
> usually use explicit when it's an object returned from some function that
> makes it unclear what the return value is:
>
>
> var items = search.GetResults();
>
> vs
>
> IList<SearchResult> items = search.GetResults(); //prefer
>
>
> >
> > There are some non-Re# issues I came across as well that look like
> artifacts of code generation:
> >
> > 6) Weird param names.
> >
> > Param1 vs. directory
> >
> > I assume it's okay to replace 'Param1' with something a descriptive name
> like 'directory'.
> >
>
> Weird - I think a rename is OK for this release (Since we're ticking up a
> full version number), but I believe changing param names can potentially
> break code. That said, I don't really think we need to change the names and
> push the 3.0.3 release out, and if it does in fact cause breaking changes,
> I'd be a little careful about how we do it going forward to 3.6.
>
> > 7) Field names that follow local variable naming conventions.
> >
> > Lots of issues related to private vars with names like i, j, k, etc. It
> feels like the right thing to do is to change the scope so that they go
> back to being local vars instead of fields. However, this requires a much
> more significant refactoring, and I didn't want to assume it was okay to do
> that.
> >
>
> I'd avoid this for now - a lot of this is a carry over from the java
> version and to rename all those, it starts to get a bit confusing if we
> have to compare java to C# and these are all changed around.
>
>
>
> > If these questions have already been answered elsewhere and I missed the
> documentation/FAQ/developer guide, then I apologize and would appreciate
> the links. Alternatively, if someone has a Re# rule config that they are
> willing to post somewhere, I would be glad to use it.
> >
>
> I think we talked about Re#'s rules at one point, I'll try to dig that
> conversation up and see where it landed. It's probably a good idea for us
> to build rules though.
>
> > - Zack
> >
> >
> > On Jul 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> >
> > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper and
> trying
> > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly,
> removing
> > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files left.
> > >
> > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some
> recent
> > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a bit
> more
> > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it).
> >
>

RE: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.

I don't think we ever fully adopted the style guidelines, probably not a terrible discussion to have. As for this release, I think that by lazy consensus we should branch the trunk at the end of this weekend (say monday), and begin the process of cutting a release. - my $.02 below

> 1) Usage of "this" prefix when not required.
>
> this.blah = blah; <- required this.
> this.aBlah = blah; <- optional this, which Re# doesn't like.
>
> I'm assuming consistency wins here, and 'this.' stays, but wanted to double check.

I'd error with consistency

>
> 2) Using different conventions for fields and parameters\local vars.
>
> blah vs. _blah
>

> Combined with 1, Re# wants (and I'm personally accustomed to):
>
> _blah = blah;
>

For private variables _ is ok, for anything else, don't use _ as it's not CLR compliant

> However, that seems to violate the adopted style.
>
> 3) Full qualification of type names.
>
> Re # wants to remove redundant namespace qualifiers. Leave them or remove them?
>

I try to remove them

> 4) Removing unreferenced classes.
>
> Should I remove non-public unreferenced classes? The ones I've come across so far are private.
>

I'm not sure I understand - are you saying we have classes that are never used in random places? If so, I think before removing them we should have a conversation; what are they, why are they there, etc. - I'm hoping there aren't too many of these..

> 5) var vs. explicit
>
> I know this has been brought up before, but not sure of the final disposition. FWIW, I prefer var.
>

I use var with it's plainly obvious the object var obj = new MyClass(). I usually use explicit when it's an object returned from some function that makes it unclear what the return value is:

var items = search.GetResults();

vs

IList<SearchResult> items = search.GetResults(); //prefer

>
> There are some non-Re# issues I came across as well that look like artifacts of code generation:
>
> 6) Weird param names.
>
> Param1 vs. directory
>
> I assume it's okay to replace 'Param1' with something a descriptive name like 'directory'.
>

Weird - I think a rename is OK for this release (Since we're ticking up a full version number), but I believe changing param names can potentially break code. That said, I don't really think we need to change the names and push the 3.0.3 release out, and if it does in fact cause breaking changes, I'd be a little careful about how we do it going forward to 3.6.

> 7) Field names that follow local variable naming conventions.
>
> Lots of issues related to private vars with names like i, j, k, etc. It feels like the right thing to do is to change the scope so that they go back to being local vars instead of fields. However, this requires a much more significant refactoring, and I didn't want to assume it was okay to do that.
>

I'd avoid this for now - a lot of this is a carry over from the java version and to rename all those, it starts to get a bit confusing if we have to compare java to C# and these are all changed around.

> If these questions have already been answered elsewhere and I missed the documentation/FAQ/developer guide, then I apologize and would appreciate the links. Alternatively, if someone has a Re# rule config that they are willing to post somewhere, I would be glad to use it.
>

I think we talked about Re#'s rules at one point, I'll try to dig that conversation up and see where it landed. It's probably a good idea for us to build rules though.

> - Zack
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
>
> > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper and trying
> > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly, removing
> > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files left.
> >
> > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some recent
> > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a bit more
> > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it).
>

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.

The point is to make the code better, not to satisfy R# :)

The main benefit of this process is marking fields as readonly, finding
code paths with stupid behavior and moving simple aggregations to use LINQ.
I don't apply the LINQ syntax to a non-trivial operations, to make it
easier to keep track of the Java version.

My thoughts on the points you raised inline

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Zachary Gramana <zg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would like to pitch into this effort and put my ReSharper license to
> use. I pulled down trunk, and picked a yellow item at random, and started
> to dig in. I quickly generated more questions than answers, realized I
> needed to stop munging code and consult the wiki and list archives. After
> digging through both, I'm still not entirely certain about what the style
> guidelines are for 3.x onward.
>
> I also noted this[1] discussion regarding some other guidelines, but it
> didn't see if it made it beyond the proposal stage.
>
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-dev/201112.mbox/%3CCAJTRbSrDbzKoCWLN6d6YwHZn2fnO91mko1aCRP-PfLX62DuxNg@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> Here are some of the things Re# is catching that I'm unsure of:
>
> 1) Usage of "this" prefix when not required.
>
> this.blah = blah;  <- required this.
> this.aBlah = blah; <- optional this, which Re# doesn't like.
>
> I'm assuming consistency wins here, and 'this.' stays, but wanted to
> double check.
>

Doesn't really matter IMO. I just hit Alt-enter when I have it in focus,
otherwise I ignore that.


>
> 2) Using different conventions for fields and parameters\local vars.
>
> blah vs. _blah
>
> Combined with 1, Re# wants (and I'm personally accustomed to):
>
> _blah = blah;
>
> However, that seems to violate the adopted style.
>

I think we should stick to the Java naming conventions in the private parts
(minus the function casings) as much as possible. Main reason is the
ability to apply patches from Java Lucene and support future ports more
easily. This is why I kept variable names untouched.


>
> 3) Full qualification of type names.
>
> Re # wants to remove redundant namespace qualifiers. Leave them or remove
> them?
>

Same as Alt-Enter argument as above...


>
> 4) Removing unreferenced classes.
>
> Should I remove non-public unreferenced classes? The ones I've come across
> so far are private.
>

It's .NET, not C++, but I still usually remove them, not really sure why
tho...


>
> 5) var vs. explicit
>
> I know this has been brought up before, but not sure of the final
> disposition. FWIW, I prefer var.
>
>
> There are some non-Re# issues I came across as well that look like
> artifacts of code generation:
>

I move to var because it *might* help in the future when the API changes,
and it doesn't really affect anything now


>
> 6) Weird param names.
>
> Param1 vs. directory
>
> I assume it's okay to replace 'Param1' with something a descriptive name
> like 'directory'.
>

Yes. Also var names like out_Renamed to @out. This one is important.


>
> 7) Field names that follow local variable naming conventions.
>
> Lots of issues related to private vars with names like i, j, k, etc. It
> feels like the right thing to do is to change the scope so that they go
> back to being local vars instead of fields. However, this requires a much
> more significant refactoring, and I didn't want to assume it was okay to do
> that.
>

See above, I don't think we should touch those.


>
> If these questions have already been answered elsewhere and I missed the
> documentation/FAQ/developer guide, then I apologize and would appreciate
> the links. Alternatively, if someone has a Re# rule config that they are
> willing to post somewhere, I would be glad to use it.
>
> - Zack
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
>
> > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper and
> trying
> > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly,
> removing
> > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files left.
> >
> > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some recent
> > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a bit
> more
> > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it).
>
>
>

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Zachary Gramana <zg...@gmail.com>.

I would like to pitch into this effort and put my ReSharper license to use. I pulled down trunk, and picked a yellow item at random, and started to dig in. I quickly generated more questions than answers, realized I needed to stop munging code and consult the wiki and list archives. After digging through both, I'm still not entirely certain about what the style guidelines are for 3.x onward. 

I also noted this[1] discussion regarding some other guidelines, but it didn't see if it made it beyond the proposal stage. 

[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-dev/201112.mbox/%3CCAJTRbSrDbzKoCWLN6d6YwHZn2fnO91mko1aCRP-PfLX62DuxNg@mail.gmail.com%3E

Here are some of the things Re# is catching that I'm unsure of:

1) Usage of "this" prefix when not required.

this.blah = blah;  <- required this.
this.aBlah = blah; <- optional this, which Re# doesn't like.

I'm assuming consistency wins here, and 'this.' stays, but wanted to double check.

2) Using different conventions for fields and parameters\local vars.

blah vs. _blah

Combined with 1, Re# wants (and I'm personally accustomed to):

_blah = blah;

However, that seems to violate the adopted style.

3) Full qualification of type names.

Re # wants to remove redundant namespace qualifiers. Leave them or remove them?

4) Removing unreferenced classes.

Should I remove non-public unreferenced classes? The ones I've come across so far are private.

5) var vs. explicit

I know this has been brought up before, but not sure of the final disposition. FWIW, I prefer var.

There are some non-Re# issues I came across as well that look like artifacts of code generation:

6) Weird param names.

Param1 vs. directory

I assume it's okay to replace 'Param1' with something a descriptive name like 'directory'.

7) Field names that follow local variable naming conventions.

Lots of issues related to private vars with names like i, j, k, etc. It feels like the right thing to do is to change the scope so that they go back to being local vars instead of fields. However, this requires a much more significant refactoring, and I didn't want to assume it was okay to do that.

If these questions have already been answered elsewhere and I missed the documentation/FAQ/developer guide, then I apologize and would appreciate the links. Alternatively, if someone has a Re# rule config that they are willing to post somewhere, I would be glad to use it.

- Zack

On Jul 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:

> The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper and trying
> to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly, removing
> unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files left.
> 
> I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some recent
> updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a bit more
> time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it).

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Michael Herndon <mh...@wickedsoftware.net>.

fork it and git r done? I couldn't resist. +1 for git.



On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>wrote:

> Nowadays git works just great for Windows, and it's much easier to work
> with than Hg
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Zachary Gramana <zgramana@feature23.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> >
> > > And for heaven's sake, can we move to git when graduating?
> >
> > Given that we're a .NET-focused community, and many of us are likely
> > primarily using Windows as both our primary development and deployment
> > platforms, I'd suggest looking at Mercurial before committing to git.
> >
> > Either way, +1 for any DVCS.
> >
>

RE: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.

Actually that's a good point, I don't think mercurial is an option for apache software projects - but I know git was rolled out over the last year as an option

----------------------------------------
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: zgramana@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:42:14 -0400
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 3:04 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
>
> > Nowadays git works just great for Windows, and it's much easier to work
> > with than Hg
>
> In the interest of full disclosure, I have done a lot of work on hosting Mercurial in C# apps and have committed to both Mercurial and IronPython, so one might guess, I view hg > git. I didn't realize the Apache Foundation already had it's own git server + github mirror, though. If the choice is between git and svn, git wins my vote every time.

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Zachary Gramana <zg...@gmail.com>.

On Aug 2, 2012, at 3:04 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:

> Nowadays git works just great for Windows, and it's much easier to work
> with than Hg

In the interest of full disclosure, I have done a lot of work on hosting Mercurial in C# apps and have committed to both Mercurial and IronPython, so one might guess, I view hg > git. I didn't realize the Apache Foundation already had it's own git server + github mirror, though. If the choice is between git and svn, git wins my vote every time.

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.

Nowadays git works just great for Windows, and it's much easier to work
with than Hg

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Zachary Gramana <zg...@feature23.com>wrote:

> On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
>
> > And for heaven's sake, can we move to git when graduating?
>
> Given that we're a .NET-focused community, and many of us are likely
> primarily using Windows as both our primary development and deployment
> platforms, I'd suggest looking at Mercurial before committing to git.
>
> Either way, +1 for any DVCS.
>

RE: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.

Did I miss the email where Itamar actually said "And for heaven's sake, can we move to git when graduating?" I think I did. I'll add it to the list of things to discuss as we progress. I believe we discussed this in the past and at the time we had a lazy consensus to stick with svn.
 > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: zgramana@feature23.com
> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:41:28 -0400
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> 
> On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> 
> > And for heaven's sake, can we move to git when graduating?
> 
> Given that we're a .NET-focused community, and many of us are likely primarily using Windows as both our primary development and deployment platforms, I'd suggest looking at Mercurial before committing to git.
> 
> Either way, +1 for any DVCS.

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Zachary Gramana <zg...@feature23.com>.

On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:

> And for heaven's sake, can we move to git when graduating?

Given that we're a .NET-focused community, and many of us are likely primarily using Windows as both our primary development and deployment platforms, I'd suggest looking at Mercurial before committing to git.

Either way, +1 for any DVCS.

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.

Yes, we could also release a 3.0.10 or something with the improved spatial
module. Or I can race Prescott's week and get it in before it ends :)

And for heaven's sake, can we move to git when graduating? A live crash
course to all committers is on me.

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Christopher Currens <currens.chris@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Ah, I did overlook that.  I imagine that the move from 3.0.3 to 3.6 will
> realistically take a while, so if we can't get spatial stuff out before
> then, would it take until 3.6 to be able to release new functionality into
> the spatial contrib project?  Along those lines, I propose that we move
> 3.0.3 into a new branch instead of just tagging the release and merging in
> 3.6.  That way, during the time it takes to port 3.6, we can still do any
> critical bug fixes and features like these and release new versions.  At
> least then, people won't be waiting for months for bug fixes.


> If we did that, then it also might not be critical to get the spatial stuff
> out with this release, since we could get out a new release in a few weeks
> with updated spatial libraries...not that I'm against waiting for it now.
>  It was just a suggestion on how we can move forward with the project.
>  Thoughts either way on this?


>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I agree
> >
> > What about the spatial stuff? you guys want to wait for it?
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > I think that while it would be nice to get it done, it's a fairly large
> > > effort, and we might be better off with doing a release.  The tests are
> > > massively changed between 3.0.3 and 3.6, so I think a lot of it will
> get
> > > cleaned up anyway during the port.  Also, a little while back, I did
> > clean
> > > up a lot of the test code to use Assert.Throws and to remove
> unnecessary
> > > variables, though that might have only been in catch statements.
>  Either
> > > way, I think we just might be ready as it is.
> > >
> > > I am eager to start working on porting 3.6.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Christopher
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > I still have plenty to go on, but on a second thought we could do
> that
> > > work
> > > > just the same when we work towards 3.6, so I won't hold you off
> anymore
> > > >
> > > > Up to Chris - he wanted to do some tests cleanup
> > > >
> > > > Also, I'll be updating the Spatial contrib during the next week or so
> > > with
> > > > polygon support. I think we should hold off the release so we can
> > provide
> > > > that as well, but I suggest we will take a vote on it, don't let me
> > hold
> > > > you off.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Just wanted to check in - where do we feel like we stand? What is
> > left
> > > to
> > > > > do - is there anything I can help with specifically? I'll have some
> > > spare
> > > > > cycles this weekend. I want to really make a push to get this ready
> > to
> > > > roll
> > > > > and not let it languish
> > > > >
> > > > > ~P
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:38:10 +0300
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and
> > coordinate
> > > > > > further later
> > > > > > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <
> > > > currens.chris@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've got resharper and can help with that if you'd like to
> > > coordinate
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > I can take a one or some of the contrib projects or part of the
> > > main
> > > > > > > library, or *shudder* the any of the test libraries. The code
> has
> > > > > needed
> > > > > > > come cleaning up for a while and some of the clean up work is
> an
> > > > > > > optimization some levels, so I'm definitely okay with spending
> > some
> > > > > time
> > > > > > > doing that. I'm okay with waiting longer as long as something
> is
> > > > > getting
> > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > > > itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with
> > ReSharper
> > > > and
> > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields
> > > readonly,
> > > > > > > removing
> > > > > > > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of
> files
> > > > left.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with
> > some
> > > > > recent
> > > > > > > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may
> > take
> > > a
> > > > > bit
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote
> for
> > > it).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > > > > > > > currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Itamar,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Where do we stand on the clean up now? Is there anything in
> > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > that you're doing that you'd like help with? I have some
> free
> > > > time
> > > > > > > today
> > > > > > > > > and am eager to get this version released.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Alright, I'll hold off a bit.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Actually there was some clean up work I started doing
> and
> > > > would
> > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption
> > > issue
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > raised.
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly
> > do
> > > > all
> > > > > > > that,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with
> the
> > > cls
> > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll
> with a
> > > > > release.
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > could please take some time to run all the test as
> well
> > > as
> > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests they might run. We've had some issues with
> tests
> > > only
> > > > > > > > happening
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > some systems so I want to make sure we have those
> bases
> > > > > covered.
> > > > > > > > > Unless
> > > > > > > > > > > > there is anything else that should be done, I'll
> leave
> > > > every
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > week to
> > > > > > > > > > > > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk
> and
> > > > cut a
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I can set a different build target, but I can't set
> > the
> > > > > actual
> > > > > > > > > > framework
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations.
> On
> > > top
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > that,
> > > > > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > > > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done
> > > > > automatically
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > .NET 4
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it
> automatically?).
> > I
> > > > did
> > > > > > > kinda
> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of
> > 4.0
> > > in
> > > > > Debug
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > Release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5
> > > > > > > > configurations,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by
> hand
> > > > since
> > > > > > > > visual
> > > > > > > > > > studio
> > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't allow you to set different framework
> versions
> > > per
> > > > > > > > > > configuration,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with
> > > > > references,
> > > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > frameworks were being referenced.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project
> > level? I
> > > > > > > created a
> > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and
> > Release
> > > > > still,
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > seemed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing
> something
> > in
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > explaination.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good work though!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've got it working, compiling and all test
> > > > > passing...The
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > caveat is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target.
> > It
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a project level, so you'd have to create two
> > > separate
> > > > > > > > projects,
> > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I
> wrote
> > a
> > > > > small
> > > > > > > tool
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > creates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions
> > to
> > > > work
> > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > framework. Anyone have experience with
> > > > multi-targeting
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott
> Nasser
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have at it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a
> > > > little
> > > > > bit
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see what kind of progress I can make,
> since I
> > > > have
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott
> > > Nasser
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked
> into
> > > the
> > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > > > there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work to be done we could potentially move
> > it
> > > to
> > > > > > > 3.0.3,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > put it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to
> > > > having
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > released, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those changes would add a fair amount of
> > > change
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > > close
> > > > > > > > > > to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can add it back to the schedule, though
> I'm
> > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > administrative work for the next two
> weeks
> > > > > though - I
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to take care of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for
> 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We
> had
> > a
> > > > > > > > contributer,
> > > > > > > > > > Luc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting
> > these
> > > > > last
> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > difficult
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or
> > more
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as
> > > > > LUCENE-493,
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no
> > > > longer
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since the tests that are marked as
> > culture
> > > > > > > sensitive
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still
> important
> > > and
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > handled.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that
> Prescott
> > > had
> > > > > done
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also know this was requested by several
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > community. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > love to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would
> be
> > > > able
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > pick
> > > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left off or take part of it, if they
> > don't
> > > > have
> > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that
> it
> > > is
> > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > complete. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've looked several times at it to
> > confirm
> > > > > most/all
> > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final
> > > check
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > close
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon
> > > > > Svensson <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sisve@devhost.se>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using
> > > > > culture=sv-se
> > > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > > fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar
> Syn-Hershko
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What's the status on the failing
> tests
> > > we
> > > > > had?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM,
> > > Prescott
> > > > > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some
> > > work,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > good on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There
> are
> > > > > still a
> > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > number of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and
> > > > > volatile
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > imo).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses
> some
> > > > > obsolete
> > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > > and we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> variable declared but never used
> > > warnings
> > > > > > > > > (mentally,
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > warning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470
> > > > > > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> much of this has been removed,
> there
> > > are
> > > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of
> opinion
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > group
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > well).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding
> > > issue
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS
> > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more
> is
> > > > > needed. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > personally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now,
> with
> > > the
> > > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > release,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37
> > -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues
> for
> > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.
> > > **org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the
> > > > > > > > > > packaging/filesystem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a
> little
> > of
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > > (ours
> > > > > > > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache's)...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of
> > the
> > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > projects to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > see how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a
> > > > > structure
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed.
> > So,
> > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > informed
> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > organically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM,
> > > > Prescott
> > > > > > > Nasser
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we
> were
> > > > using
> > > > > > > Nant.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release
> > > > > structure". I
> > > > > > > > > > figured a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and
> .dll
> > > > files
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > directories. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki
> > was
> > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be
> > > great
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21
> > > -0400
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues
> > for
> > > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> From:
> mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To:
> lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.
> > > > **org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38
> AM,
> > > > > Prescott
> > > > > > > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious one,
> > is
> > > > > listed
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends
> tied
> > > up.
> > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > hopefully
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I
> > did
> > > a
> > > > > quick
> > > > > > > > > > search for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'public *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual
> > > > methods -
> > > > > > > > > perhaps a
> > > > > > > > > > > > few to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance),
> is
> > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current
> state
> > > of
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> names of public members are now
> > > > compliant.
> > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > > are a
> > > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte
> > (particularly
> > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected
> > or
> > > > > > > internal*
> > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > (some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one
> will
> > be
> > > > > > > > appreciated
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > most. My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on
> the
> > > > > amount of
> > > > > > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > compliance to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest
> into
> > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS
> compliant
> > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > sbyte
> > > > > > > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting
> (I
> > > ran
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if
> > we
> > > > > can't
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I
> would
> > > not
> > > > > try
> > > > > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sbyte or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release.
> It's
> > > > going
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > serious
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we
> going
> > > to
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > (not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the
> > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > desire
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is
> > > related
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > builds
> > > > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > output
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do
> > this
> > > > for
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > release?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last
> weekend -
> > > I'm
> > > > > > > > terrible
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nant, so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to
> have,
> > > but
> > > > I
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe
> > make
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > adjustment,
> > > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to
> > look
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it
> or
> > we
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > rest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso
> > > > shots,
> > > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this.
> Is
> > > > > there an
> > > > > > > > > > official
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our*
> apache
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and
> > use
> > > > > that to
> > > > > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build
> > > > scripts
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > pita in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > general.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell
> or
> > a
> > > > > > > scripting
> > > > > > > > > > > > language is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mono
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs
> > have
> > > it
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > installed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time
> > > documenting
> > > > > it so
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.

On that note, see git-flow
http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/  :)

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:

> That's probably not a bad idea - we should probably move to a structure
> like that anyway going forward so that it's easier to manage bug fixes and
> minor updates in between the "big work"
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:42:40 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >
> > Ah, I did overlook that. I imagine that the move from 3.0.3 to 3.6 will
> > realistically take a while, so if we can't get spatial stuff out before
> > then, would it take until 3.6 to be able to release new functionality
> into
> > the spatial contrib project? Along those lines, I propose that we move
> > 3.0.3 into a new branch instead of just tagging the release and merging
> in
> > 3.6. That way, during the time it takes to port 3.6, we can still do any
> > critical bug fixes and features like these and release new versions. At
> > least then, people won't be waiting for months for bug fixes.
> >
> > If we did that, then it also might not be critical to get the spatial
> stuff
> > out with this release, since we could get out a new release in a few
> weeks
> > with updated spatial libraries...not that I'm against waiting for it now.
> > It was just a suggestion on how we can move forward with the project.
> > Thoughts either way on this?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > > I agree
> > >
> > > What about the spatial stuff? you guys want to wait for it?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > > currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think that while it would be nice to get it done, it's a fairly
> large
> > > > effort, and we might be better off with doing a release. The tests
> are
> > > > massively changed between 3.0.3 and 3.6, so I think a lot of it will
> get
> > > > cleaned up anyway during the port. Also, a little while back, I did
> > > clean
> > > > up a lot of the test code to use Assert.Throws and to remove
> unnecessary
> > > > variables, though that might have only been in catch statements.
> Either
> > > > way, I think we just might be ready as it is.
> > > >
> > > > I am eager to start working on porting 3.6.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Christopher
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> itamar@code972.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I still have plenty to go on, but on a second thought we could do
> that
> > > > work
> > > > > just the same when we work towards 3.6, so I won't hold you off
> anymore
> > > > >
> > > > > Up to Chris - he wanted to do some tests cleanup
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I'll be updating the Spatial contrib during the next week or
> so
> > > > with
> > > > > polygon support. I think we should hold off the release so we can
> > > provide
> > > > > that as well, but I suggest we will take a vote on it, don't let me
> > > hold
> > > > > you off.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Just wanted to check in - where do we feel like we stand? What is
> > > left
> > > > to
> > > > > > do - is there anything I can help with specifically? I'll have
> some
> > > > spare
> > > > > > cycles this weekend. I want to really make a push to get this
> ready
> > > to
> > > > > roll
> > > > > > and not let it languish
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~P
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:38:10 +0300
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and
> > > coordinate
> > > > > > > further later
> > > > > > > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <
> > > > > currens.chris@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've got resharper and can help with that if you'd like to
> > > > coordinate
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > I can take a one or some of the contrib projects or part of
> the
> > > > main
> > > > > > > > library, or *shudder* the any of the test libraries. The
> code has
> > > > > > needed
> > > > > > > > come cleaning up for a while and some of the clean up work
> is an
> > > > > > > > optimization some levels, so I'm definitely okay with
> spending
> > > some
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > doing that. I'm okay with waiting longer as long as
> something is
> > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > > > > itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with
> > > ReSharper
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields
> > > > readonly,
> > > > > > > > removing
> > > > > > > > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of
> files
> > > > > left.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module
> with
> > > some
> > > > > > recent
> > > > > > > > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may
> > > take
> > > > a
> > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote
> for
> > > > it).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > > > > > > > > currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Itamar,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Where do we stand on the clean up now? Is there anything
> in
> > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > that you're doing that you'd like help with? I have some
> free
> > > > > time
> > > > > > > > today
> > > > > > > > > > and am eager to get this version released.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Alright, I'll hold off a bit.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actually there was some clean up work I started
> doing and
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > complete, and also sign off on the suspected
> corruption
> > > > issue
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > raised.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to
> properly
> > > do
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > > that,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done
> with the
> > > > cls
> > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll
> with a
> > > > > > release.
> > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > could please take some time to run all the test as
> well
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests they might run. We've had some issues with
> tests
> > > > only
> > > > > > > > > happening
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > some systems so I want to make sure we have those
> bases
> > > > > > covered.
> > > > > > > > > > Unless
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there is anything else that should be done, I'll
> leave
> > > > > every
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > week to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the
> trunk and
> > > > > cut a
> > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can set a different build target, but I can't
> set
> > > the
> > > > > > actual
> > > > > > > > > > > framework
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 without doing it for all build
> configurations. On
> > > > top
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > that,
> > > > > > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done
> > > > > > automatically
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > .NET 4
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it
> automatically?).
> > > I
> > > > > did
> > > > > > > > kinda
> > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag
> of
> > > 4.0
> > > > in
> > > > > > Debug
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release
> 3.5
> > > > > > > > > configurations,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by
> hand
> > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > visual
> > > > > > > > > > > studio
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't allow you to set different framework
> versions
> > > > per
> > > > > > > > > > > configuration,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble
> with
> > > > > > references,
> > > > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > frameworks were being referenced.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project
> > > level? I
> > > > > > > > created a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and
> > > Release
> > > > > > still,
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > seemed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing
> something
> > > in
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > explaination.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good work though!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've got it working, compiling and all test
> > > > > > passing...The
> > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > caveat is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I'm not sure the best way to
> multi-target.
> > > It
> > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a project level, so you'd have to create two
> > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > projects,
> > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I
> wrote
> > > a
> > > > > > small
> > > > > > > > tool
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > creates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and
> solutions
> > > to
> > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > framework. Anyone have experience with
> > > > > multi-targeting
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott
> Nasser
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have at it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on
> it a
> > > > > little
> > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see what kind of progress I can make,
> since I
> > > > > have
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM,
> Prescott
> > > > Nasser
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked
> into
> > > > the
> > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work to be done we could potentially
> move
> > > it
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > 3.0.3,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > put it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer
> to
> > > > > having
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > released, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those changes would add a fair amount
> of
> > > > change
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > close
> > > > > > > > > > > to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can add it back to the schedule,
> though I'm
> > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > administrative work for the next two
> weeks
> > > > > > though - I
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to take care of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for
> 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We
> had
> > > a
> > > > > > > > > contributer,
> > > > > > > > > > > Luc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting
> > > these
> > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > difficult
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or
> > > more
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well
> as
> > > > > > LUCENE-493,
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should
> no
> > > > > longer
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since the tests that are marked as
> > > culture
> > > > > > > > sensitive
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still
> important
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handled.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that
> Prescott
> > > > had
> > > > > > done
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also know this was requested by
> several
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > community. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > love to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and
> would be
> > > > > able
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > pick
> > > > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left off or take part of it, if they
> > > don't
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree
> that it
> > > > is
> > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > complete. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've looked several times at it to
> > > confirm
> > > > > > most/all
> > > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a
> final
> > > > check
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > close
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM,
> Simon
> > > > > > Svensson <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sisve@devhost.se>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using
> > > > > > culture=sv-se
> > > > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > > > fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar
> Syn-Hershko
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What's the status on the failing
> tests
> > > > we
> > > > > > had?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM,
> > > > Prescott
> > > > > > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did
> some
> > > > work,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > good on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now?
> There are
> > > > > > still a
> > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > number of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte
> and
> > > > > > volatile
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > imo).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses
> some
> > > > > > obsolete
> > > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> variable declared but never used
> > > > warnings
> > > > > > > > > > (mentally,
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > warning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470
> > > > > > > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> much of this has been removed,
> there
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of
> opinion
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > group
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > well).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I really think the only
> outstanding
> > > > issue
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With
> CLS
> > > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if
> more is
> > > > > > needed. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > personally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now,
> with
> > > > the
> > > > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > release,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37
> > > -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues
> for
> > > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To:
> lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.
> > > > **org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the
> > > > > > > > > > > packaging/filesystem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a
> little
> > > of
> > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > (ours
> > > > > > > > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache's)...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > projects to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed
> a
> > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we
> needed.
> > > So,
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > informed
> > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > organically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF
> uses.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32
> AM,
> > > > > Prescott
> > > > > > > > Nasser
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we
> were
> > > > > using
> > > > > > > > Nant.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release
> > > > > > structure". I
> > > > > > > > > > > figured a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and
> .dll
> > > > > files
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > directories. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> documentation you have on the
> wiki
> > > was
> > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would
> be
> > > > great
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 201210:04:21
> > > > -0400
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding
> issues
> > > for
> > > > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> From:
> mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To:
> lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.
> > > > > **org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38
> AM,
> > > > > > Prescott
> > > > > > > > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious
> one,
> > > is
> > > > > > listed
> > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends
> tied
> > > > up.
> > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > hopefully
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left?
> I
> > > did
> > > > a
> > > > > > quick
> > > > > > > > > > > search for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'public *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual
> > > > > methods -
> > > > > > > > > > perhaps a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > few to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS
> Compliance), is
> > > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current
> state
> > > > of
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> names of public members are now
> > > > > compliant.
> > > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > > > are a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte
> > > (particularly
> > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with
> *protected
> > > or
> > > > > > > > internal*
> > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one
> will
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > appreciated
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > most. My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line
> on the
> > > > > > amount of
> > > > > > > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compliance to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest
> into
> > > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS
> compliant
> > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > sbyte
> > > > > > > > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit
> shifting (I
> > > > ran
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see
> if
> > > we
> > > > > > can't
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I
> would
> > > > not
> > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sbyte or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release.
> It's
> > > > > going
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serious
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we
> going
> > > > to
> > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate
> the
> > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > desire
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is
> > > > related
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > builds
> > > > > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > output
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do
> > > this
> > > > > for
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > release?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last
> weekend -
> > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > terrible
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nant, so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to
> have,
> > > > but
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to
> maybe
> > > make
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > adjustment,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going
> to
> > > look
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have
> it or
> > > we
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and
> expresso
> > > > > shots,
> > > > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for
> this. Is
> > > > > > there an
> > > > > > > > > > > official
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our*
> apache
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release
> and
> > > use
> > > > > > that to
> > > > > > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml
> build
> > > > > scripts
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > pita in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > general.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we're using this over
> powershell or
> > > a
> > > > > > > > scripting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > language is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mono
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs
> > > have
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > installed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time
> > > > documenting
> > > > > > it so
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>

RE: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.

That's probably not a bad idea - we should probably move to a structure like that anyway going forward so that it's easier to manage bug fixes and minor updates in between the "big work"

----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:42:40 -0700
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> Ah, I did overlook that. I imagine that the move from 3.0.3 to 3.6 will
> realistically take a while, so if we can't get spatial stuff out before
> then, would it take until 3.6 to be able to release new functionality into
> the spatial contrib project? Along those lines, I propose that we move
> 3.0.3 into a new branch instead of just tagging the release and merging in
> 3.6. That way, during the time it takes to port 3.6, we can still do any
> critical bug fixes and features like these and release new versions. At
> least then, people won't be waiting for months for bug fixes.
>
> If we did that, then it also might not be critical to get the spatial stuff
> out with this release, since we could get out a new release in a few weeks
> with updated spatial libraries...not that I'm against waiting for it now.
> It was just a suggestion on how we can move forward with the project.
> Thoughts either way on this?
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>wrote:
>
> > I agree
> >
> > What about the spatial stuff? you guys want to wait for it?
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > I think that while it would be nice to get it done, it's a fairly large
> > > effort, and we might be better off with doing a release. The tests are
> > > massively changed between 3.0.3 and 3.6, so I think a lot of it will get
> > > cleaned up anyway during the port. Also, a little while back, I did
> > clean
> > > up a lot of the test code to use Assert.Throws and to remove unnecessary
> > > variables, though that might have only been in catch statements. Either
> > > way, I think we just might be ready as it is.
> > >
> > > I am eager to start working on porting 3.6.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Christopher
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > I still have plenty to go on, but on a second thought we could do that
> > > work
> > > > just the same when we work towards 3.6, so I won't hold you off anymore
> > > >
> > > > Up to Chris - he wanted to do some tests cleanup
> > > >
> > > > Also, I'll be updating the Spatial contrib during the next week or so
> > > with
> > > > polygon support. I think we should hold off the release so we can
> > provide
> > > > that as well, but I suggest we will take a vote on it, don't let me
> > hold
> > > > you off.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Just wanted to check in - where do we feel like we stand? What is
> > left
> > > to
> > > > > do - is there anything I can help with specifically? I'll have some
> > > spare
> > > > > cycles this weekend. I want to really make a push to get this ready
> > to
> > > > roll
> > > > > and not let it languish
> > > > >
> > > > > ~P
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:38:10 +0300
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and
> > coordinate
> > > > > > further later
> > > > > > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <
> > > > currens.chris@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've got resharper and can help with that if you'd like to
> > > coordinate
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > I can take a one or some of the contrib projects or part of the
> > > main
> > > > > > > library, or *shudder* the any of the test libraries. The code has
> > > > > needed
> > > > > > > come cleaning up for a while and some of the clean up work is an
> > > > > > > optimization some levels, so I'm definitely okay with spending
> > some
> > > > > time
> > > > > > > doing that. I'm okay with waiting longer as long as something is
> > > > > getting
> > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > > > itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with
> > ReSharper
> > > > and
> > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields
> > > readonly,
> > > > > > > removing
> > > > > > > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files
> > > > left.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with
> > some
> > > > > recent
> > > > > > > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may
> > take
> > > a
> > > > > bit
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for
> > > it).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > > > > > > > currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Itamar,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Where do we stand on the clean up now? Is there anything in
> > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > that you're doing that you'd like help with? I have some free
> > > > time
> > > > > > > today
> > > > > > > > > and am eager to get this version released.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Alright, I'll hold off a bit.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and
> > > > would
> > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption
> > > issue
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > raised.
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly
> > do
> > > > all
> > > > > > > that,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with the
> > > cls
> > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll with a
> > > > > release.
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > could please take some time to run all the test as well
> > > as
> > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests they might run. We've had some issues with tests
> > > only
> > > > > > > > happening
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > some systems so I want to make sure we have those bases
> > > > > covered.
> > > > > > > > > Unless
> > > > > > > > > > > > there is anything else that should be done, I'll leave
> > > > every
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > week to
> > > > > > > > > > > > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk and
> > > > cut a
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I can set a different build target, but I can't set
> > the
> > > > > actual
> > > > > > > > > > framework
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations. On
> > > top
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > that,
> > > > > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > > > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done
> > > > > automatically
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > .NET 4
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it automatically?).
> > I
> > > > did
> > > > > > > kinda
> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of
> > 4.0
> > > in
> > > > > Debug
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > Release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5
> > > > > > > > configurations,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by hand
> > > > since
> > > > > > > > visual
> > > > > > > > > > studio
> > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't allow you to set different framework versions
> > > per
> > > > > > > > > > configuration,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with
> > > > > references,
> > > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > frameworks were being referenced.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project
> > level? I
> > > > > > > created a
> > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and
> > Release
> > > > > still,
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > seemed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing something
> > in
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > explaination.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good work though!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've got it working, compiling and all test
> > > > > passing...The
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > caveat is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target.
> > It
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a project level, so you'd have to create two
> > > separate
> > > > > > > > projects,
> > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I wrote
> > a
> > > > > small
> > > > > > > tool
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > creates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions
> > to
> > > > work
> > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > framework. Anyone have experience with
> > > > multi-targeting
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have at it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a
> > > > little
> > > > > bit
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see what kind of progress I can make, since I
> > > > have
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott
> > > Nasser
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked into
> > > the
> > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > > > there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work to be done we could potentially move
> > it
> > > to
> > > > > > > 3.0.3,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > put it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to
> > > > having
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > released, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those changes would add a fair amount of
> > > change
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > > close
> > > > > > > > > > to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm
> > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > administrative work for the next two weeks
> > > > > though - I
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to take care of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We had
> > a
> > > > > > > > contributer,
> > > > > > > > > > Luc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting
> > these
> > > > > last
> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > difficult
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or
> > more
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as
> > > > > LUCENE-493,
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no
> > > > longer
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since the tests that are marked as
> > culture
> > > > > > > sensitive
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still important
> > > and
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > handled.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott
> > > had
> > > > > done
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also know this was requested by several
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > community. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > love to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be
> > > > able
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > pick
> > > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left off or take part of it, if they
> > don't
> > > > have
> > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it
> > > is
> > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > complete. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've looked several times at it to
> > confirm
> > > > > most/all
> > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final
> > > check
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > close
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon
> > > > > Svensson <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sisve@devhost.se>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using
> > > > > culture=sv-se
> > > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > > fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What's the status on the failing tests
> > > we
> > > > > had?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM,
> > > Prescott
> > > > > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some
> > > work,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > good on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There are
> > > > > still a
> > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > number of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and
> > > > > volatile
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > imo).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses some
> > > > > obsolete
> > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > > and we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> variable declared but never used
> > > warnings
> > > > > > > > > (mentally,
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > warning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470
> > > > > > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> much of this has been removed, there
> > > are
> > > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of opinion
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > group
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > well).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding
> > > issue
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS
> > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more is
> > > > > needed. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > personally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now, with
> > > the
> > > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > release,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37
> > -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for
> > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.
> > > **org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the
> > > > > > > > > > packaging/filesystem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a little
> > of
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > > (ours
> > > > > > > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache's)...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of
> > the
> > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > projects to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > see how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a
> > > > > structure
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed.
> > So,
> > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > informed
> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > organically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM,
> > > > Prescott
> > > > > > > Nasser
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we were
> > > > using
> > > > > > > Nant.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release
> > > > > structure". I
> > > > > > > > > > figured a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and .dll
> > > > files
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > directories. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki
> > was
> > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be
> > > great
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21
> > > -0400
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues
> > for
> > > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.
> > > > **org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM,
> > > > > Prescott
> > > > > > > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious one,
> > is
> > > > > listed
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends tied
> > > up.
> > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > hopefully
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I
> > did
> > > a
> > > > > quick
> > > > > > > > > > search for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'public *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual
> > > > methods -
> > > > > > > > > perhaps a
> > > > > > > > > > > > few to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is
> > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current state
> > > of
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> names of public members are now
> > > > compliant.
> > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > > are a
> > > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte
> > (particularly
> > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected
> > or
> > > > > > > internal*
> > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > (some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one will
> > be
> > > > > > > > appreciated
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > most. My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on the
> > > > > amount of
> > > > > > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > compliance to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest into
> > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS compliant
> > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > sbyte
> > > > > > > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting (I
> > > ran
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if
> > we
> > > > > can't
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I would
> > > not
> > > > > try
> > > > > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sbyte or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release. It's
> > > > going
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > serious
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we going
> > > to
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > (not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the
> > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > desire
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is
> > > related
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > builds
> > > > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > output
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do
> > this
> > > > for
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > release?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last weekend -
> > > I'm
> > > > > > > > terrible
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nant, so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to have,
> > > but
> > > > I
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe
> > make
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > adjustment,
> > > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to
> > look
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it or
> > we
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > rest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso
> > > > shots,
> > > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this. Is
> > > > > there an
> > > > > > > > > > official
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our* apache
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and
> > use
> > > > > that to
> > > > > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build
> > > > scripts
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > pita in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > general.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell or
> > a
> > > > > > > scripting
> > > > > > > > > > > > language is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mono
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs
> > have
> > > it
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > installed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time
> > > documenting
> > > > > it so
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Christopher Currens <cu...@gmail.com>.

Ah, I did overlook that.  I imagine that the move from 3.0.3 to 3.6 will
realistically take a while, so if we can't get spatial stuff out before
then, would it take until 3.6 to be able to release new functionality into
the spatial contrib project?  Along those lines, I propose that we move
3.0.3 into a new branch instead of just tagging the release and merging in
3.6.  That way, during the time it takes to port 3.6, we can still do any
critical bug fixes and features like these and release new versions.  At
least then, people won't be waiting for months for bug fixes.

If we did that, then it also might not be critical to get the spatial stuff
out with this release, since we could get out a new release in a few weeks
with updated spatial libraries...not that I'm against waiting for it now.
 It was just a suggestion on how we can move forward with the project.
 Thoughts either way on this?


On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>wrote:

> I agree
>
> What about the spatial stuff? you guys want to wait for it?
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Christopher Currens <
> currens.chris@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > I think that while it would be nice to get it done, it's a fairly large
> > effort, and we might be better off with doing a release.  The tests are
> > massively changed between 3.0.3 and 3.6, so I think a lot of it will get
> > cleaned up anyway during the port.  Also, a little while back, I did
> clean
> > up a lot of the test code to use Assert.Throws and to remove unnecessary
> > variables, though that might have only been in catch statements.  Either
> > way, I think we just might be ready as it is.
> >
> > I am eager to start working on porting 3.6.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Christopher
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > I still have plenty to go on, but on a second thought we could do that
> > work
> > > just the same when we work towards 3.6, so I won't hold you off anymore
> > >
> > > Up to Chris - he wanted to do some tests cleanup
> > >
> > > Also, I'll be updating the Spatial contrib during the next week or so
> > with
> > > polygon support. I think we should hold off the release so we can
> provide
> > > that as well, but I suggest we will take a vote on it, don't let me
> hold
> > > you off.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just wanted to check in - where do we feel like we stand? What is
> left
> > to
> > > > do - is there anything I can help with specifically? I'll have some
> > spare
> > > > cycles this weekend. I want to really make a push to get this ready
> to
> > > roll
> > > > and not let it languish
> > > >
> > > > ~P
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:38:10 +0300
> > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and
> coordinate
> > > > > further later
> > > > > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <
> > > currens.chris@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I've got resharper and can help with that if you'd like to
> > coordinate
> > > > it.
> > > > > > I can take a one or some of the contrib projects or part of the
> > main
> > > > > > library, or *shudder* the any of the test libraries. The code has
> > > > needed
> > > > > > come cleaning up for a while and some of the clean up work is an
> > > > > > optimization some levels, so I'm definitely okay with spending
> some
> > > > time
> > > > > > doing that. I'm okay with waiting longer as long as something is
> > > > getting
> > > > > > done.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > > itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with
> ReSharper
> > > and
> > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields
> > readonly,
> > > > > > removing
> > > > > > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files
> > > left.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with
> some
> > > > recent
> > > > > > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may
> take
> > a
> > > > bit
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for
> > it).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > > > > > > currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Itamar,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Where do we stand on the clean up now? Is there anything in
> > > > particular
> > > > > > > > that you're doing that you'd like help with? I have some free
> > > time
> > > > > > today
> > > > > > > > and am eager to get this version released.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alright, I'll hold off a bit.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and
> > > would
> > > > > > want
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption
> > issue
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > raised.
> > > > > > > > > > I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly
> do
> > > all
> > > > > > that,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with the
> > cls
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll with a
> > > > release.
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > could please take some time to run all the test as well
> > as
> > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > tests they might run. We've had some issues with tests
> > only
> > > > > > > happening
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > some systems so I want to make sure we have those bases
> > > > covered.
> > > > > > > > Unless
> > > > > > > > > > > there is anything else that should be done, I'll leave
> > > every
> > > > one
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > week to
> > > > > > > > > > > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk and
> > > cut a
> > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I can set a different build target, but I can't set
> the
> > > > actual
> > > > > > > > > framework
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations. On
> > top
> > > > of
> > > > > > > that,
> > > > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done
> > > > automatically
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > .NET 4
> > > > > > > > > > > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it automatically?).
> I
> > > did
> > > > > > kinda
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of
> 4.0
> > in
> > > > Debug
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > Release
> > > > > > > > > > > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5
> > > > > > > configurations,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by hand
> > > since
> > > > > > > visual
> > > > > > > > > studio
> > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't allow you to set different framework versions
> > per
> > > > > > > > > configuration,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with
> > > > references,
> > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > frameworks were being referenced.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project
> level? I
> > > > > > created a
> > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and
> Release
> > > > still,
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > seemed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing something
> in
> > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > explaination.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Good work though!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've got it working, compiling and all test
> > > > passing...The
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > caveat is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target.
> It
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a project level, so you'd have to create two
> > separate
> > > > > > > projects,
> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I wrote
> a
> > > > small
> > > > > > tool
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > creates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions
> to
> > > work
> > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > framework. Anyone have experience with
> > > multi-targeting
> > > > like
> > > > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have at it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a
> > > little
> > > > bit
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see what kind of progress I can make, since I
> > > have
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott
> > Nasser
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked into
> > the
> > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > > there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work to be done we could potentially move
> it
> > to
> > > > > > 3.0.3,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > put it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to
> > > having
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > released, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those changes would add a fair amount of
> > change
> > > > so
> > > > > > > close
> > > > > > > > > to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm
> > > > mostly
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > administrative work for the next two weeks
> > > > though - I
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to take care of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We had
> a
> > > > > > > contributer,
> > > > > > > > > Luc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting
> these
> > > > last
> > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > difficult
> > > > > > > > > > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or
> more
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as
> > > > LUCENE-493,
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no
> > > longer
> > > > get
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since the tests that are marked as
> culture
> > > > > > sensitive
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still important
> > and
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > handled.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott
> > had
> > > > done
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also know this was requested by several
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > community. I
> > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > love to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be
> > > able
> > > > to
> > > > > > > pick
> > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left off or take part of it, if they
> don't
> > > have
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it
> > is
> > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > > > complete. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've looked several times at it to
> confirm
> > > > most/all
> > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final
> > check
> > > > and
> > > > > > > close
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon
> > > > Svensson <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sisve@devhost.se>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using
> > > > culture=sv-se
> > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What's the status on the failing tests
> > we
> > > > had?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM,
> > Prescott
> > > > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some
> > work,
> > > > but
> > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > good on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There are
> > > > still a
> > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > number of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and
> > > > volatile
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > imo).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses some
> > > > obsolete
> > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > and we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> variable declared but never used
> > warnings
> > > > > > > > (mentally,
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > warning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470
> > > > > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> much of this has been removed, there
> > are
> > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of opinion
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > group
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > well).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding
> > issue
> > > > is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS
> > > > compliance
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more is
> > > > needed. I
> > > > > > > > > > > personally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now, with
> > the
> > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > release,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37
> -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for
> > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.
> > **org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the
> > > > > > > > > packaging/filesystem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a little
> of
> > > > both
> > > > > > > (ours
> > > > > > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache's)...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of
> the
> > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > projects to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > see how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a
> > > > structure
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed.
> So,
> > > it's
> > > > > > > > informed
> > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > organically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM,
> > > Prescott
> > > > > > Nasser
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we were
> > > using
> > > > > > Nant.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release
> > > > structure". I
> > > > > > > > > figured a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and .dll
> > > files
> > > > into
> > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > directories. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki
> was
> > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > > > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be
> > great
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21
> > -0400
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues
> for
> > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.
> > > **org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM,
> > > > Prescott
> > > > > > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious one,
> is
> > > > listed
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends tied
> > up.
> > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > hopefully
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I
> did
> > a
> > > > quick
> > > > > > > > > search for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'public *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual
> > > methods -
> > > > > > > > perhaps a
> > > > > > > > > > > few to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is
> > > > important,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current state
> > of
> > > > this
> > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> names of public members are now
> > > compliant.
> > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > are a
> > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte
> (particularly
> > > > those
> > > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected
> or
> > > > > > internal*
> > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > (some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one will
> be
> > > > > > > appreciated
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > most. My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on the
> > > > amount of
> > > > > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliance to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest into
> > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS compliant
> > > > issues.
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > sbyte
> > > > > > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting (I
> > ran
> > > > into
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if
> we
> > > > can't
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I would
> > not
> > > > try
> > > > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sbyte or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release. It's
> > > going
> > > > to
> > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > serious
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we going
> > to
> > > > add
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > (not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the
> > > > community
> > > > > > > > desire
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is
> > related
> > > to
> > > > > > > builds
> > > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > > > > output
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do
> this
> > > for
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > release?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last weekend -
> > I'm
> > > > > > > terrible
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nant, so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to have,
> > but
> > > I
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe
> make
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > adjustment,
> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to
> look
> > > > into
> > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it or
> we
> > > > don't
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > rest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso
> > > shots,
> > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this. Is
> > > > there an
> > > > > > > > > official
> > > > > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our* apache
> > > > release
> > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and
> use
> > > > that to
> > > > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build
> > > scripts
> > > > are
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > pita in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > general.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell or
> a
> > > > > > scripting
> > > > > > > > > > > language is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mono
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs
> have
> > it
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > installed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time
> > documenting
> > > > it so
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.

+1 from me too, then

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:

> Spatial could be something cool to look forward to in 3.6 IMO.
>
> I'm good with tagging what we have and I'd like to take a week to allow
> the community test the tag code against their stuff before cutting release
> binaries.
>
> +1 to going now.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:31:45 +0300
> > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > From: itamar@code972.com
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >
> > I agree
> >
> > What about the spatial stuff? you guys want to wait for it?
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Christopher Currens <
> currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > I think that while it would be nice to get it done, it's a fairly large
> > > effort, and we might be better off with doing a release. The tests are
> > > massively changed between 3.0.3 and 3.6, so I think a lot of it will
> get
> > > cleaned up anyway during the port. Also, a little while back, I did
> clean
> > > up a lot of the test code to use Assert.Throws and to remove
> unnecessary
> > > variables, though that might have only been in catch statements. Either
> > > way, I think we just might be ready as it is.
> > >
> > > I am eager to start working on porting 3.6.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Christopher
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > I still have plenty to go on, but on a second thought we could do
> that
> > > work
> > > > just the same when we work towards 3.6, so I won't hold you off
> anymore
> > > >
> > > > Up to Chris - he wanted to do some tests cleanup
> > > >
> > > > Also, I'll be updating the Spatial contrib during the next week or so
> > > with
> > > > polygon support. I think we should hold off the release so we can
> provide
> > > > that as well, but I suggest we will take a vote on it, don't let me
> hold
> > > > you off.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Just wanted to check in - where do we feel like we stand? What is
> left
> > > to
> > > > > do - is there anything I can help with specifically? I'll have some
> > > spare
> > > > > cycles this weekend. I want to really make a push to get this
> ready to
> > > > roll
> > > > > and not let it languish
> > > > >
> > > > > ~P
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:38:10 +0300
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and
> coordinate
> > > > > > further later
> > > > > > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <
> > > > currens.chris@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've got resharper and can help with that if you'd like to
> > > coordinate
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > I can take a one or some of the contrib projects or part of the
> > > main
> > > > > > > library, or *shudder* the any of the test libraries. The code
> has
> > > > > needed
> > > > > > > come cleaning up for a while and some of the clean up work is
> an
> > > > > > > optimization some levels, so I'm definitely okay with spending
> some
> > > > > time
> > > > > > > doing that. I'm okay with waiting longer as long as something
> is
> > > > > getting
> > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > > > itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with
> ReSharper
> > > > and
> > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields
> > > readonly,
> > > > > > > removing
> > > > > > > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of
> files
> > > > left.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with
> some
> > > > > recent
> > > > > > > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may
> take
> > > a
> > > > > bit
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote
> for
> > > it).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > > > > > > > currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Itamar,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Where do we stand on the clean up now? Is there anything in
> > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > that you're doing that you'd like help with? I have some
> free
> > > > time
> > > > > > > today
> > > > > > > > > and am eager to get this version released.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Alright, I'll hold off a bit.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Actually there was some clean up work I started doing
> and
> > > > would
> > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption
> > > issue
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > raised.
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to
> properly do
> > > > all
> > > > > > > that,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with
> the
> > > cls
> > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll
> with a
> > > > > release.
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > could please take some time to run all the test as
> well
> > > as
> > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests they might run. We've had some issues with
> tests
> > > only
> > > > > > > > happening
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > some systems so I want to make sure we have those
> bases
> > > > > covered.
> > > > > > > > > Unless
> > > > > > > > > > > > there is anything else that should be done, I'll
> leave
> > > > every
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > week to
> > > > > > > > > > > > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk
> and
> > > > cut a
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I can set a different build target, but I can't
> set the
> > > > > actual
> > > > > > > > > > framework
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations.
> On
> > > top
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > that,
> > > > > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > > > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done
> > > > > automatically
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > .NET 4
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it
> automatically?). I
> > > > did
> > > > > > > kinda
> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of
> 4.0
> > > in
> > > > > Debug
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > Release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5
> > > > > > > > configurations,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by
> hand
> > > > since
> > > > > > > > visual
> > > > > > > > > > studio
> > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't allow you to set different framework
> versions
> > > per
> > > > > > > > > > configuration,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with
> > > > > references,
> > > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > frameworks were being referenced.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project
> level? I
> > > > > > > created a
> > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and
> Release
> > > > > still,
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > seemed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing
> something in
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > explaination.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good work though!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've got it working, compiling and all test
> > > > > passing...The
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > caveat is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I'm not sure the best way to
> multi-target. It
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a project level, so you'd have to create two
> > > separate
> > > > > > > > projects,
> > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I
> wrote a
> > > > > small
> > > > > > > tool
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > creates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and
> solutions to
> > > > work
> > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > framework. Anyone have experience with
> > > > multi-targeting
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott
> Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have at it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a
> > > > little
> > > > > bit
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see what kind of progress I can make,
> since I
> > > > have
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott
> > > Nasser
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked
> into
> > > the
> > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > > > there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work to be done we could potentially
> move it
> > > to
> > > > > > > 3.0.3,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > put it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to
> > > > having
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > released, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those changes would add a fair amount of
> > > change
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > > close
> > > > > > > > > > to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can add it back to the schedule, though
> I'm
> > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > administrative work for the next two
> weeks
> > > > > though - I
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to take care of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for
> 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We
> had a
> > > > > > > > contributer,
> > > > > > > > > > Luc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting
> these
> > > > > last
> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > difficult
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or
> more
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as
> > > > > LUCENE-493,
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no
> > > > longer
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since the tests that are marked as
> culture
> > > > > > > sensitive
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still
> important
> > > and
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > handled.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that
> Prescott
> > > had
> > > > > done
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also know this was requested by
> several in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > community. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > love to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would
> be
> > > > able
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > pick
> > > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left off or take part of it, if they
> don't
> > > > have
> > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that
> it
> > > is
> > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > complete. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've looked several times at it to
> confirm
> > > > > most/all
> > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final
> > > check
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > close
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon
> > > > > Svensson <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sisve@devhost.se>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using
> > > > > culture=sv-se
> > > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > > fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar
> Syn-Hershko
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What's the status on the failing
> tests
> > > we
> > > > > had?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM,
> > > Prescott
> > > > > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some
> > > work,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > good on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There
> are
> > > > > still a
> > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > number of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and
> > > > > volatile
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > imo).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses
> some
> > > > > obsolete
> > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > > and we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> variable declared but never used
> > > warnings
> > > > > > > > > (mentally,
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > warning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470
> > > > > > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> much of this has been removed,
> there
> > > are
> > > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of
> opinion in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > group
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > well).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding
> > > issue
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS
> > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more
> is
> > > > > needed. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > personally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now,
> with
> > > the
> > > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > release,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37
> -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues
> for
> > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.
> > > **org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the
> > > > > > > > > > packaging/filesystem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a
> little of
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > > (ours
> > > > > > > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache's)...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of
> the
> > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > projects to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > see how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a
> > > > > structure
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed.
> So,
> > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > informed
> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > organically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM,
> > > > Prescott
> > > > > > > Nasser
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we
> were
> > > > using
> > > > > > > Nant.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release
> > > > > structure". I
> > > > > > > > > > figured a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and
> .dll
> > > > files
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > directories. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki
> was
> > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be
> > > great
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21
> > > -0400
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues
> for
> > > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> From:
> mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To:
> lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.
> > > > **org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38
> AM,
> > > > > Prescott
> > > > > > > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious
> one, is
> > > > > listed
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends
> tied
> > > up.
> > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > hopefully
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I
> did
> > > a
> > > > > quick
> > > > > > > > > > search for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'public *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual
> > > > methods -
> > > > > > > > > perhaps a
> > > > > > > > > > > > few to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance),
> is
> > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current
> state
> > > of
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> names of public members are now
> > > > compliant.
> > > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > > are a
> > > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte
> (particularly
> > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with
> *protected or
> > > > > > > internal*
> > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > (some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one
> will be
> > > > > > > > appreciated
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > most. My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on
> the
> > > > > amount of
> > > > > > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > compliance to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest
> into
> > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS
> compliant
> > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > sbyte
> > > > > > > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting
> (I
> > > ran
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see
> if we
> > > > > can't
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I
> would
> > > not
> > > > > try
> > > > > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sbyte or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release.
> It's
> > > > going
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > serious
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we
> going
> > > to
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > (not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the
> > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > desire
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is
> > > related
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > builds
> > > > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > output
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do
> this
> > > > for
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > release?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last
> weekend -
> > > I'm
> > > > > > > > terrible
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nant, so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to
> have,
> > > but
> > > > I
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe
> make
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > adjustment,
> > > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to
> look
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it
> or we
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > rest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso
> > > > shots,
> > > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this.
> Is
> > > > > there an
> > > > > > > > > > official
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our*
> apache
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and
> use
> > > > > that to
> > > > > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build
> > > > scripts
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > pita in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > general.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell
> or a
> > > > > > > scripting
> > > > > > > > > > > > language is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mono
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs
> have
> > > it
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > installed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time
> > > documenting
> > > > > it so
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>

RE: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.

Spatial could be something cool to look forward to in 3.6 IMO.

I'm good with tagging what we have and I'd like to take a week to allow the community test the tag code against their stuff before cutting release binaries.

+1 to going now.


----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:31:45 +0300
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: itamar@code972.com
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> I agree
>
> What about the spatial stuff? you guys want to wait for it?
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Christopher Currens <currens.chris@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > I think that while it would be nice to get it done, it's a fairly large
> > effort, and we might be better off with doing a release. The tests are
> > massively changed between 3.0.3 and 3.6, so I think a lot of it will get
> > cleaned up anyway during the port. Also, a little while back, I did clean
> > up a lot of the test code to use Assert.Throws and to remove unnecessary
> > variables, though that might have only been in catch statements. Either
> > way, I think we just might be ready as it is.
> >
> > I am eager to start working on porting 3.6.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Christopher
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > I still have plenty to go on, but on a second thought we could do that
> > work
> > > just the same when we work towards 3.6, so I won't hold you off anymore
> > >
> > > Up to Chris - he wanted to do some tests cleanup
> > >
> > > Also, I'll be updating the Spatial contrib during the next week or so
> > with
> > > polygon support. I think we should hold off the release so we can provide
> > > that as well, but I suggest we will take a vote on it, don't let me hold
> > > you off.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just wanted to check in - where do we feel like we stand? What is left
> > to
> > > > do - is there anything I can help with specifically? I'll have some
> > spare
> > > > cycles this weekend. I want to really make a push to get this ready to
> > > roll
> > > > and not let it languish
> > > >
> > > > ~P
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:38:10 +0300
> > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and coordinate
> > > > > further later
> > > > > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <
> > > currens.chris@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I've got resharper and can help with that if you'd like to
> > coordinate
> > > > it.
> > > > > > I can take a one or some of the contrib projects or part of the
> > main
> > > > > > library, or *shudder* the any of the test libraries. The code has
> > > > needed
> > > > > > come cleaning up for a while and some of the clean up work is an
> > > > > > optimization some levels, so I'm definitely okay with spending some
> > > > time
> > > > > > doing that. I'm okay with waiting longer as long as something is
> > > > getting
> > > > > > done.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > > itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper
> > > and
> > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields
> > readonly,
> > > > > > removing
> > > > > > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files
> > > left.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some
> > > > recent
> > > > > > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take
> > a
> > > > bit
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for
> > it).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > > > > > > currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Itamar,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Where do we stand on the clean up now? Is there anything in
> > > > particular
> > > > > > > > that you're doing that you'd like help with? I have some free
> > > time
> > > > > > today
> > > > > > > > and am eager to get this version released.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alright, I'll hold off a bit.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and
> > > would
> > > > > > want
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption
> > issue
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > raised.
> > > > > > > > > > I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly do
> > > all
> > > > > > that,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with the
> > cls
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll with a
> > > > release.
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > could please take some time to run all the test as well
> > as
> > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > tests they might run. We've had some issues with tests
> > only
> > > > > > > happening
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > some systems so I want to make sure we have those bases
> > > > covered.
> > > > > > > > Unless
> > > > > > > > > > > there is anything else that should be done, I'll leave
> > > every
> > > > one
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > week to
> > > > > > > > > > > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk and
> > > cut a
> > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I can set a different build target, but I can't set the
> > > > actual
> > > > > > > > > framework
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations. On
> > top
> > > > of
> > > > > > > that,
> > > > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done
> > > > automatically
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > .NET 4
> > > > > > > > > > > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it automatically?). I
> > > did
> > > > > > kinda
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of 4.0
> > in
> > > > Debug
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > Release
> > > > > > > > > > > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5
> > > > > > > configurations,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by hand
> > > since
> > > > > > > visual
> > > > > > > > > studio
> > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't allow you to set different framework versions
> > per
> > > > > > > > > configuration,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with
> > > > references,
> > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > frameworks were being referenced.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project level? I
> > > > > > created a
> > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and Release
> > > > still,
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > seemed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing something in
> > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > explaination.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Good work though!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've got it working, compiling and all test
> > > > passing...The
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > caveat is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target. It
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a project level, so you'd have to create two
> > separate
> > > > > > > projects,
> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I wrote a
> > > > small
> > > > > > tool
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > creates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions to
> > > work
> > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > framework. Anyone have experience with
> > > multi-targeting
> > > > like
> > > > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have at it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a
> > > little
> > > > bit
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see what kind of progress I can make, since I
> > > have
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott
> > Nasser
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked into
> > the
> > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > > there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work to be done we could potentially move it
> > to
> > > > > > 3.0.3,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > put it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to
> > > having
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > released, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those changes would add a fair amount of
> > change
> > > > so
> > > > > > > close
> > > > > > > > > to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm
> > > > mostly
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > administrative work for the next two weeks
> > > > though - I
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to take care of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We had a
> > > > > > > contributer,
> > > > > > > > > Luc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting these
> > > > last
> > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > difficult
> > > > > > > > > > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or more
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as
> > > > LUCENE-493,
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no
> > > longer
> > > > get
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since the tests that are marked as culture
> > > > > > sensitive
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still important
> > and
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > handled.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott
> > had
> > > > done
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also know this was requested by several in
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > community. I
> > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > love to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be
> > > able
> > > > to
> > > > > > > pick
> > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left off or take part of it, if they don't
> > > have
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it
> > is
> > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > > > complete. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've looked several times at it to confirm
> > > > most/all
> > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final
> > check
> > > > and
> > > > > > > close
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon
> > > > Svensson <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sisve@devhost.se>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using
> > > > culture=sv-se
> > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What's the status on the failing tests
> > we
> > > > had?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM,
> > Prescott
> > > > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some
> > work,
> > > > but
> > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > good on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There are
> > > > still a
> > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > number of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and
> > > > volatile
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > imo).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses some
> > > > obsolete
> > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > and we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> variable declared but never used
> > warnings
> > > > > > > > (mentally,
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > warning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470
> > > > > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> much of this has been removed, there
> > are
> > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of opinion in
> > > the
> > > > > > group
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > well).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding
> > issue
> > > > is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS
> > > > compliance
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more is
> > > > needed. I
> > > > > > > > > > > personally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now, with
> > the
> > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > release,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for
> > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.
> > **org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the
> > > > > > > > > packaging/filesystem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a little of
> > > > both
> > > > > > > (ours
> > > > > > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache's)...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of the
> > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > projects to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > see how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a
> > > > structure
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed. So,
> > > it's
> > > > > > > > informed
> > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > organically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM,
> > > Prescott
> > > > > > Nasser
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we were
> > > using
> > > > > > Nant.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release
> > > > structure". I
> > > > > > > > > figured a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and .dll
> > > files
> > > > into
> > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > directories. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki was
> > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > > > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be
> > great
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21
> > -0400
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for
> > > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.
> > > **org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM,
> > > > Prescott
> > > > > > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious one, is
> > > > listed
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends tied
> > up.
> > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > hopefully
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I did
> > a
> > > > quick
> > > > > > > > > search for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'public *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual
> > > methods -
> > > > > > > > perhaps a
> > > > > > > > > > > few to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is
> > > > important,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current state
> > of
> > > > this
> > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> names of public members are now
> > > compliant.
> > > > > > There
> > > > > > > > > are a
> > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte (particularly
> > > > those
> > > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected or
> > > > > > internal*
> > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > (some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one will be
> > > > > > > appreciated
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > most. My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on the
> > > > amount of
> > > > > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliance to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest into
> > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS compliant
> > > > issues.
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > sbyte
> > > > > > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting (I
> > ran
> > > > into
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if we
> > > > can't
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I would
> > not
> > > > try
> > > > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sbyte or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release. It's
> > > going
> > > > to
> > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > serious
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we going
> > to
> > > > add
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > (not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the
> > > > community
> > > > > > > > desire
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is
> > related
> > > to
> > > > > > > builds
> > > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > > > > output
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do this
> > > for
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > release?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last weekend -
> > I'm
> > > > > > > terrible
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nant, so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to have,
> > but
> > > I
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe make
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > adjustment,
> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to look
> > > > into
> > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it or we
> > > > don't
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > rest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso
> > > shots,
> > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this. Is
> > > > there an
> > > > > > > > > official
> > > > > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our* apache
> > > > release
> > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and use
> > > > that to
> > > > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build
> > > scripts
> > > > are
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > pita in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > general.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell or a
> > > > > > scripting
> > > > > > > > > > > language is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mono
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs have
> > it
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > installed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time
> > documenting
> > > > it so
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.

I agree

What about the spatial stuff? you guys want to wait for it?

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Christopher Currens <currens.chris@gmail.com
> wrote:

> I think that while it would be nice to get it done, it's a fairly large
> effort, and we might be better off with doing a release.  The tests are
> massively changed between 3.0.3 and 3.6, so I think a lot of it will get
> cleaned up anyway during the port.  Also, a little while back, I did clean
> up a lot of the test code to use Assert.Throws and to remove unnecessary
> variables, though that might have only been in catch statements.  Either
> way, I think we just might be ready as it is.
>
> I am eager to start working on porting 3.6.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Christopher
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I still have plenty to go on, but on a second thought we could do that
> work
> > just the same when we work towards 3.6, so I won't hold you off anymore
> >
> > Up to Chris - he wanted to do some tests cleanup
> >
> > Also, I'll be updating the Spatial contrib during the next week or so
> with
> > polygon support. I think we should hold off the release so we can provide
> > that as well, but I suggest we will take a vote on it, don't let me hold
> > you off.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Just wanted to check in - where do we feel like we stand? What is left
> to
> > > do - is there anything I can help with specifically? I'll have some
> spare
> > > cycles this weekend. I want to really make a push to get this ready to
> > roll
> > > and not let it languish
> > >
> > > ~P
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:38:10 +0300
> > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and coordinate
> > > > further later
> > > > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <
> > currens.chris@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I've got resharper and can help with that if you'd like to
> coordinate
> > > it.
> > > > > I can take a one or some of the contrib projects or part of the
> main
> > > > > library, or *shudder* the any of the test libraries. The code has
> > > needed
> > > > > come cleaning up for a while and some of the clean up work is an
> > > > > optimization some levels, so I'm definitely okay with spending some
> > > time
> > > > > doing that. I'm okay with waiting longer as long as something is
> > > getting
> > > > > done.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Christopher
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > itamar@code972.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper
> > and
> > > > > trying
> > > > > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields
> readonly,
> > > > > removing
> > > > > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files
> > left.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some
> > > recent
> > > > > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take
> a
> > > bit
> > > > > more
> > > > > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for
> it).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > > > > > currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Itamar,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Where do we stand on the clean up now? Is there anything in
> > > particular
> > > > > > > that you're doing that you'd like help with? I have some free
> > time
> > > > > today
> > > > > > > and am eager to get this version released.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alright, I'll hold off a bit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and
> > would
> > > > > want
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption
> issue
> > > we
> > > > > > > raised.
> > > > > > > > > I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly do
> > all
> > > > > that,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with the
> cls
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll with a
> > > release.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > could please take some time to run all the test as well
> as
> > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > tests they might run. We've had some issues with tests
> only
> > > > > > happening
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > some systems so I want to make sure we have those bases
> > > covered.
> > > > > > > Unless
> > > > > > > > > > there is anything else that should be done, I'll leave
> > every
> > > one
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > week to
> > > > > > > > > > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk and
> > cut a
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I can set a different build target, but I can't set the
> > > actual
> > > > > > > > framework
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations. On
> top
> > > of
> > > > > > that,
> > > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done
> > > automatically
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > .NET 4
> > > > > > > > > > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it automatically?). I
> > did
> > > > > kinda
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of 4.0
> in
> > > Debug
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > Release
> > > > > > > > > > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5
> > > > > > configurations,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by hand
> > since
> > > > > > visual
> > > > > > > > studio
> > > > > > > > > > > doesn't allow you to set different framework versions
> per
> > > > > > > > configuration,
> > > > > > > > > > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with
> > > references,
> > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > frameworks were being referenced.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project level? I
> > > > > created a
> > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and Release
> > > still,
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > seemed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing something in
> > > your
> > > > > > > > > > explaination.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Good work though!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've got it working, compiling and all test
> > > passing...The
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > caveat is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target. It
> > > doesn't
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a project level, so you'd have to create two
> separate
> > > > > > projects,
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I wrote a
> > > small
> > > > > tool
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > creates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions to
> > work
> > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > > > > framework. Anyone have experience with
> > multi-targeting
> > > like
> > > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have at it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a
> > little
> > > bit
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see what kind of progress I can make, since I
> > have
> > > some
> > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott
> Nasser
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked into
> the
> > > 3.5
> > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work to be done we could potentially move it
> to
> > > > > 3.0.3,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > put it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to
> > having
> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > released, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those changes would add a fair amount of
> change
> > > so
> > > > > > close
> > > > > > > > to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > release. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm
> > > mostly
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > administrative work for the next two weeks
> > > though - I
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > things I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to take care of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We had a
> > > > > > contributer,
> > > > > > > > Luc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting these
> > > last
> > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > difficult
> > > > > > > > > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or more
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as
> > > LUCENE-493,
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no
> > longer
> > > get
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since the tests that are marked as culture
> > > > > sensitive
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still important
> and
> > > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > handled.
> > > > > > > > > > > > What
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott
> had
> > > done
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also know this was requested by several in
> > the
> > > > > > > > community. I
> > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > love to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be
> > able
> > > to
> > > > > > pick
> > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left off or take part of it, if they don't
> > have
> > > > > time
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it
> is
> > > pretty
> > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > > complete. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've looked several times at it to confirm
> > > most/all
> > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final
> check
> > > and
> > > > > > close
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon
> > > Svensson <
> > > > > > > > > > > > sisve@devhost.se>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using
> > > culture=sv-se
> > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What's the status on the failing tests
> we
> > > had?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM,
> Prescott
> > > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some
> work,
> > > but
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > good on
> > > > > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There are
> > > still a
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > number of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and
> > > volatile
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > imo).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses some
> > > obsolete
> > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > and we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> variable declared but never used
> warnings
> > > > > > > (mentally,
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > warning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470
> > > > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> much of this has been removed, there
> are
> > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of opinion in
> > the
> > > > > group
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > well).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding
> issue
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS
> > > compliance
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more is
> > > needed. I
> > > > > > > > > > personally
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now, with
> the
> > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > release,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for
> > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.
> **org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the
> > > > > > > > packaging/filesystem
> > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a little of
> > > both
> > > > > > (ours
> > > > > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache's)...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of the
> > > Apache
> > > > > > > > projects to
> > > > > > > > > > > > see how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a
> > > structure
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed. So,
> > it's
> > > > > > > informed
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > organically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM,
> > Prescott
> > > > > Nasser
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we were
> > using
> > > > > Nant.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release
> > > structure". I
> > > > > > > > figured a
> > > > > > > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and .dll
> > files
> > > into
> > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > directories. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki was
> > > actually
> > > > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be
> great
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21
> -0400
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for
> > > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.
> > **org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM,
> > > Prescott
> > > > > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious one, is
> > > listed
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends tied
> up.
> > > I'll
> > > > > > > > hopefully
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I did
> a
> > > quick
> > > > > > > > search for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'public *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual
> > methods -
> > > > > > > perhaps a
> > > > > > > > > > few to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is
> > > important,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current state
> of
> > > this
> > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> names of public members are now
> > compliant.
> > > > > There
> > > > > > > > are a
> > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte (particularly
> > > those
> > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected or
> > > > > internal*
> > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > (some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one will be
> > > > > > appreciated
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > most. My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on the
> > > amount of
> > > > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > > > compliance to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest into
> > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS compliant
> > > issues.
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > sbyte
> > > > > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting (I
> ran
> > > into
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if we
> > > can't
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I would
> not
> > > try
> > > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sbyte or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release. It's
> > going
> > > to
> > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > serious
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we going
> to
> > > add
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > (not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the
> > > community
> > > > > > > desire
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > this in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is
> related
> > to
> > > > > > builds
> > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > > > output
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do this
> > for
> > > this
> > > > > > > > release?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last weekend -
> I'm
> > > > > > terrible
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > Nant, so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to have,
> but
> > I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe make
> > the
> > > > > > > > adjustment,
> > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to look
> > > into
> > > > > it,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it or we
> > > don't
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > rest
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso
> > shots,
> > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this. Is
> > > there an
> > > > > > > > official
> > > > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our* apache
> > > release
> > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and use
> > > that to
> > > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build
> > scripts
> > > are
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > pita in
> > > > > > > > > > > > general.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell or a
> > > > > scripting
> > > > > > > > > > language is
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mono
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs have
> it
> > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > installed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time
> documenting
> > > it so
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Christopher Currens <cu...@gmail.com>.

I think that while it would be nice to get it done, it's a fairly large
effort, and we might be better off with doing a release.  The tests are
massively changed between 3.0.3 and 3.6, so I think a lot of it will get
cleaned up anyway during the port.  Also, a little while back, I did clean
up a lot of the test code to use Assert.Throws and to remove unnecessary
variables, though that might have only been in catch statements.  Either
way, I think we just might be ready as it is.

I am eager to start working on porting 3.6.


Thanks,
Christopher

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>wrote:

> I still have plenty to go on, but on a second thought we could do that work
> just the same when we work towards 3.6, so I won't hold you off anymore
>
> Up to Chris - he wanted to do some tests cleanup
>
> Also, I'll be updating the Spatial contrib during the next week or so with
> polygon support. I think we should hold off the release so we can provide
> that as well, but I suggest we will take a vote on it, don't let me hold
> you off.
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Just wanted to check in - where do we feel like we stand? What is left to
> > do - is there anything I can help with specifically? I'll have some spare
> > cycles this weekend. I want to really make a push to get this ready to
> roll
> > and not let it languish
> >
> > ~P
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> > > Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:38:10 +0300
> > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and coordinate
> > > further later
> > > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <
> currens.chris@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've got resharper and can help with that if you'd like to coordinate
> > it.
> > > > I can take a one or some of the contrib projects or part of the main
> > > > library, or *shudder* the any of the test libraries. The code has
> > needed
> > > > come cleaning up for a while and some of the clean up work is an
> > > > optimization some levels, so I'm definitely okay with spending some
> > time
> > > > doing that. I'm okay with waiting longer as long as something is
> > getting
> > > > done.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Christopher
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > itamar@code972.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper
> and
> > > > trying
> > > > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly,
> > > > removing
> > > > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files
> left.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some
> > recent
> > > > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a
> > bit
> > > > more
> > > > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it).
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > > > > currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Itamar,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where do we stand on the clean up now? Is there anything in
> > particular
> > > > > > that you're doing that you'd like help with? I have some free
> time
> > > > today
> > > > > > and am eager to get this version released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alright, I'll hold off a bit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and
> would
> > > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption issue
> > we
> > > > > > raised.
> > > > > > > > I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly do
> all
> > > > that,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with the cls
> > > > issues
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll with a
> > release.
> > > > If
> > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > could please take some time to run all the test as well as
> > > > whatever
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > tests they might run. We've had some issues with tests only
> > > > > happening
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > some systems so I want to make sure we have those bases
> > covered.
> > > > > > Unless
> > > > > > > > > there is anything else that should be done, I'll leave
> every
> > one
> > > > a
> > > > > > > week to
> > > > > > > > > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk and
> cut a
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I can set a different build target, but I can't set the
> > actual
> > > > > > > framework
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations. On top
> > of
> > > > > that,
> > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done
> > automatically
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > .NET 4
> > > > > > > > > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it automatically?). I
> did
> > > > kinda
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of 4.0 in
> > Debug
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > Release
> > > > > > > > > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5
> > > > > configurations,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by hand
> since
> > > > > visual
> > > > > > > studio
> > > > > > > > > > doesn't allow you to set different framework versions per
> > > > > > > configuration,
> > > > > > > > > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with
> > references,
> > > > > > since
> > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > frameworks were being referenced.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project level? I
> > > > created a
> > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and Release
> > still,
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > seemed to
> > > > > > > > > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing something in
> > your
> > > > > > > > > explaination.
> > > > > > > > > > > Good work though!
> > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've got it working, compiling and all test
> > passing...The
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > caveat is
> > > > > > > > > > > > that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target. It
> > doesn't
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > a project level, so you'd have to create two separate
> > > > > projects,
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I wrote a
> > small
> > > > tool
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > creates
> > > > > > > > > > > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions to
> work
> > > > > against
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > > > framework. Anyone have experience with
> multi-targeting
> > like
> > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Have at it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a
> little
> > bit
> > > > in
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > see what kind of progress I can make, since I
> have
> > some
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott Nasser
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked into the
> > 3.5
> > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work to be done we could potentially move it to
> > > > 3.0.3,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > put it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to
> having
> > this
> > > > > > > > > released, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those changes would add a fair amount of change
> > so
> > > > > close
> > > > > > > to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > release. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm
> > mostly
> > > > just
> > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > administrative work for the next two weeks
> > though - I
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > things I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to take care of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We had a
> > > > > contributer,
> > > > > > > Luc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting these
> > last
> > > > few
> > > > > > > > > difficult
> > > > > > > > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or more of
> > the
> > > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as
> > LUCENE-493,
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no
> longer
> > get
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since the tests that are marked as culture
> > > > sensitive
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still important and
> > > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > handled.
> > > > > > > > > > > What
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott had
> > done
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also know this was requested by several in
> the
> > > > > > > community. I
> > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > love to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be
> able
> > to
> > > > > pick
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left off or take part of it, if they don't
> have
> > > > time
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it is
> > pretty
> > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > complete. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've looked several times at it to confirm
> > most/all
> > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final check
> > and
> > > > > close
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon
> > Svensson <
> > > > > > > > > > > sisve@devhost.se>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using
> > culture=sv-se
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > > fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What's the status on the failing tests we
> > had?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Prescott
> > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some work,
> > but
> > > > I'm
> > > > > > > good on
> > > > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There are
> > still a
> > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > number of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and
> > volatile
> > > > are
> > > > > > out
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > > > > > > > imo).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses some
> > obsolete
> > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > and we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> variable declared but never used warnings
> > > > > > (mentally,
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > warning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470
> > > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> much of this has been removed, there are
> > > > probably
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of opinion in
> the
> > > > group
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > well).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding issue
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > one,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS
> > compliance
> > > > we
> > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more is
> > needed. I
> > > > > > > > > personally
> > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now, with the
> > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > release,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for
> 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the
> > > > > > > packaging/filesystem
> > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a little of
> > both
> > > > > (ours
> > > > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache's)...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of the
> > Apache
> > > > > > > projects to
> > > > > > > > > > > see how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a
> > structure
> > > > that
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed. So,
> it's
> > > > > > informed
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > organically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM,
> Prescott
> > > > Nasser
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we were
> using
> > > > Nant.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release
> > structure". I
> > > > > > > figured a
> > > > > > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and .dll
> files
> > into
> > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > directories. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki was
> > actually
> > > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be great
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21 -0400
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for
> > 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.
> **org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM,
> > Prescott
> > > > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious one, is
> > listed
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends tied up.
> > I'll
> > > > > > > hopefully
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I did a
> > quick
> > > > > > > search for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 'public *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual
> methods -
> > > > > > perhaps a
> > > > > > > > > few to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is
> > important,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > way we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current state of
> > this
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> names of public members are now
> compliant.
> > > > There
> > > > > > > are a
> > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte (particularly
> > those
> > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected or
> > > > internal*
> > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > (some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one will be
> > > > > appreciated
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > most. My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on the
> > amount of
> > > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > > compliance to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest into
> 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS compliant
> > issues.
> > > > the
> > > > > > > sbyte
> > > > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting (I ran
> > into
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if we
> > can't
> > > > get
> > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I would not
> > try
> > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sbyte or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release. It's
> going
> > to
> > > > > take
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > serious
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we going to
> > add
> > > > this
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > (not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the
> > community
> > > > > > desire
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > this in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is related
> to
> > > > > builds
> > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > > output
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do this
> for
> > this
> > > > > > > release?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last weekend - I'm
> > > > > terrible
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > Nant, so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to have, but
> I
> > > > don't
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe make
> the
> > > > > > > adjustment,
> > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to look
> > into
> > > > it,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it or we
> > don't
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > rest
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso
> shots,
> > > > > anything
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this. Is
> > there an
> > > > > > > official
> > > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our* apache
> > release
> > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and use
> > that to
> > > > > > model
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build
> scripts
> > are
> > > > a
> > > > > > > pita in
> > > > > > > > > > > general.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell or a
> > > > scripting
> > > > > > > > > language is
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mono
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs have it
> > > > already
> > > > > > > > > installed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time documenting
> > it so
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
>

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.

I still have plenty to go on, but on a second thought we could do that work
just the same when we work towards 3.6, so I won't hold you off anymore

Up to Chris - he wanted to do some tests cleanup

Also, I'll be updating the Spatial contrib during the next week or so with
polygon support. I think we should hold off the release so we can provide
that as well, but I suggest we will take a vote on it, don't let me hold
you off.

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:

> Just wanted to check in - where do we feel like we stand? What is left to
> do - is there anything I can help with specifically? I'll have some spare
> cycles this weekend. I want to really make a push to get this ready to roll
> and not let it languish
>
> ~P
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:38:10 +0300
> > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > From: itamar@code972.com
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >
> > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and coordinate
> > further later
> > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <cu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I've got resharper and can help with that if you'd like to coordinate
> it.
> > > I can take a one or some of the contrib projects or part of the main
> > > library, or *shudder* the any of the test libraries. The code has
> needed
> > > come cleaning up for a while and some of the clean up work is an
> > > optimization some levels, so I'm definitely okay with spending some
> time
> > > doing that. I'm okay with waiting longer as long as something is
> getting
> > > done.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Christopher
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> itamar@code972.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper and
> > > trying
> > > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly,
> > > removing
> > > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files left.
> > > >
> > > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some
> recent
> > > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a
> bit
> > > more
> > > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it).
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > > > currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Itamar,
> > > > >
> > > > > Where do we stand on the clean up now? Is there anything in
> particular
> > > > > that you're doing that you'd like help with? I have some free time
> > > today
> > > > > and am eager to get this version released.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Christopher
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alright, I'll hold off a bit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and would
> > > want
> > > > to
> > > > > > > complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption issue
> we
> > > > > raised.
> > > > > > > I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly do all
> > > that,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > I'll keep you posted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with the cls
> > > issues
> > > > at
> > > > > > > > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll with a
> release.
> > > If
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > could please take some time to run all the test as well as
> > > whatever
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > tests they might run. We've had some issues with tests only
> > > > happening
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > some systems so I want to make sure we have those bases
> covered.
> > > > > Unless
> > > > > > > > there is anything else that should be done, I'll leave every
> one
> > > a
> > > > > > week to
> > > > > > > > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk and cut a
> > > > release
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I can set a different build target, but I can't set the
> actual
> > > > > > framework
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations. On top
> of
> > > > that,
> > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done
> automatically
> > > > in
> > > > > > .NET 4
> > > > > > > > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it automatically?). I did
> > > kinda
> > > > > get
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of 4.0 in
> Debug
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > Release
> > > > > > > > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5
> > > > configurations,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by hand since
> > > > visual
> > > > > > studio
> > > > > > > > > doesn't allow you to set different framework versions per
> > > > > > configuration,
> > > > > > > > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with
> references,
> > > > > since
> > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > frameworks were being referenced.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project level? I
> > > created a
> > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and Release
> still,
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > seemed to
> > > > > > > > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing something in
> your
> > > > > > > > explaination.
> > > > > > > > > > Good work though!
> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I've got it working, compiling and all test
> passing...The
> > > > only
> > > > > > > > caveat is
> > > > > > > > > > > that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target. It
> doesn't
> > > > > really
> > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > a project level, so you'd have to create two separate
> > > > projects,
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I wrote a
> small
> > > tool
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > creates
> > > > > > > > > > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions to work
> > > > against
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > > framework. Anyone have experience with multi-targeting
> like
> > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Have at it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a little
> bit
> > > in
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > see what kind of progress I can make, since I have
> some
> > > > > time
> > > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked into the
> 3.5
> > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > work to be done we could potentially move it to
> > > 3.0.3,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > put it
> > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to having
> this
> > > > > > > > released, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > those changes would add a fair amount of change
> so
> > > > close
> > > > > > to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > release. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm
> mostly
> > > just
> > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > administrative work for the next two weeks
> though - I
> > > > > have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > things I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to take care of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We had a
> > > > contributer,
> > > > > > Luc
> > > > > > > > > > > > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting these
> last
> > > few
> > > > > > > > difficult
> > > > > > > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or more of
> the
> > > > > failing
> > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as
> LUCENE-493,
> > > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no longer
> get
> > > > any
> > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since the tests that are marked as culture
> > > sensitive
> > > > > are
> > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still important and
> > > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > handled.
> > > > > > > > > > What
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott had
> done
> > > > some
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > also know this was requested by several in the
> > > > > > community. I
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > love to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be able
> to
> > > > pick
> > > > > up
> > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left off or take part of it, if they don't have
> > > time
> > > > to
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it is
> pretty
> > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > complete. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've looked several times at it to confirm
> most/all
> > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final check
> and
> > > > close
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon
> Svensson <
> > > > > > > > > > sisve@devhost.se>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using
> culture=sv-se
> > > > seems
> > > > > > fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What's the status on the failing tests we
> had?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Prescott
> > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some work,
> but
> > > I'm
> > > > > > good on
> > > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There are
> still a
> > > > good
> > > > > > > > number of
> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and
> volatile
> > > are
> > > > > out
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > > > > > > imo).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses some
> obsolete
> > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > and we
> > > > > > > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> variable declared but never used warnings
> > > > > (mentally,
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > treat
> > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > warning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470
> > > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> much of this has been removed, there are
> > > probably
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of opinion in the
> > > group
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > well).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding issue
> is
> > > the
> > > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > > one,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS
> compliance
> > > we
> > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more is
> needed. I
> > > > > > > > personally
> > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now, with the
> 3.0.3
> > > > > > release,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the
> > > > > > packaging/filesystem
> > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a little of
> both
> > > > (ours
> > > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > > > > Apache's)...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of the
> Apache
> > > > > > projects to
> > > > > > > > > > see how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a
> structure
> > > that
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed. So, it's
> > > > > informed
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > organically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Prescott
> > > Nasser
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we were using
> > > Nant.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release
> structure". I
> > > > > > figured a
> > > > > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and .dll files
> into
> > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > directories. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki was
> actually
> > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be great
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21 -0400
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for
> 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM,
> Prescott
> > > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious one, is
> listed
> > > > only
> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends tied up.
> I'll
> > > > > > hopefully
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I did a
> quick
> > > > > > search for
> > > > > > > > > > > > 'public *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual methods -
> > > > > perhaps a
> > > > > > > > few to
> > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is
> important,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > way we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current state of
> this
> > > > issue
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> names of public members are now compliant.
> > > There
> > > > > > are a
> > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte (particularly
> those
> > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected or
> > > internal*
> > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > (some
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one will be
> > > > appreciated
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > most. My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on the
> amount of
> > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > > compliance to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest into 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS compliant
> issues.
> > > the
> > > > > > sbyte
> > > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > will run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting (I ran
> into
> > > > this
> > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if we
> can't
> > > get
> > > > > rid
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I would not
> try
> > > > > getting
> > > > > > rid
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > sbyte or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release. It's going
> to
> > > > take
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > serious
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we going to
> add
> > > this
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > (not
> > > > > > > > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the
> community
> > > > > desire
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > this in
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is related to
> > > > builds
> > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > > output
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do this for
> this
> > > > > > release?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last weekend - I'm
> > > > terrible
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > Nant, so
> > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to have, but I
> > > don't
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe make the
> > > > > > adjustment,
> > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to look
> into
> > > it,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it or we
> don't
> > > > when
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > rest
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso shots,
> > > > anything
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this. Is
> there an
> > > > > > official
> > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our* apache
> release
> > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and use
> that to
> > > > > model
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build scripts
> are
> > > a
> > > > > > pita in
> > > > > > > > > > general.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell or a
> > > scripting
> > > > > > > > language is
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mono
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs have it
> > > already
> > > > > > > > installed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time documenting
> it so
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>

RE: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.

Just wanted to check in - where do we feel like we stand? What is left to do - is there anything I can help with specifically? I'll have some spare cycles this weekend. I want to really make a push to get this ready to roll and not let it languish

~P

----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:38:10 +0300
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: itamar@code972.com
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and coordinate
> further later
> On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <cu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I've got resharper and can help with that if you'd like to coordinate it.
> > I can take a one or some of the contrib projects or part of the main
> > library, or *shudder* the any of the test libraries. The code has needed
> > come cleaning up for a while and some of the clean up work is an
> > optimization some levels, so I'm definitely okay with spending some time
> > doing that. I'm okay with waiting longer as long as something is getting
> > done.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Christopher
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper and
> > trying
> > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly,
> > removing
> > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files left.
> > >
> > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some recent
> > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a bit
> > more
> > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it).
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > > currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Itamar,
> > > >
> > > > Where do we stand on the clean up now? Is there anything in particular
> > > > that you're doing that you'd like help with? I have some free time
> > today
> > > > and am eager to get this version released.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Christopher
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Alright, I'll hold off a bit.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and would
> > want
> > > to
> > > > > > complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption issue we
> > > > raised.
> > > > > > I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly do all
> > that,
> > > > but
> > > > > > I'll keep you posted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with the cls
> > issues
> > > at
> > > > > > > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll with a release.
> > If
> > > > > people
> > > > > > > could please take some time to run all the test as well as
> > whatever
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > tests they might run. We've had some issues with tests only
> > > happening
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > some systems so I want to make sure we have those bases covered.
> > > > Unless
> > > > > > > there is anything else that should be done, I'll leave every one
> > a
> > > > > week to
> > > > > > > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk and cut a
> > > release
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I can set a different build target, but I can't set the actual
> > > > > framework
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations. On top of
> > > that,
> > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done automatically
> > > in
> > > > > .NET 4
> > > > > > > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it automatically?). I did
> > kinda
> > > > get
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of 4.0 in Debug
> > > and
> > > > > > > Release
> > > > > > > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5
> > > configurations,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by hand since
> > > visual
> > > > > studio
> > > > > > > > doesn't allow you to set different framework versions per
> > > > > configuration,
> > > > > > > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with references,
> > > > since
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > > frameworks were being referenced.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project level? I
> > created a
> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and Release still,
> > > that
> > > > > > > seemed to
> > > > > > > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing something in your
> > > > > > > explaination.
> > > > > > > > > Good work though!
> > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've got it working, compiling and all test passing...The
> > > only
> > > > > > > caveat is
> > > > > > > > > > that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target. It doesn't
> > > > really
> > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > a project level, so you'd have to create two separate
> > > projects,
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I wrote a small
> > tool
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > creates
> > > > > > > > > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions to work
> > > against
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > > framework. Anyone have experience with multi-targeting like
> > > > this?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Have at it.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a little bit
> > in
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > see what kind of progress I can make, since I have some
> > > > time
> > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked into the 3.5
> > > > branch,
> > > > > > > there is
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work to be done we could potentially move it to
> > 3.0.3,
> > > > but
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > put it
> > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to having this
> > > > > > > released, and
> > > > > > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > those changes would add a fair amount of change so
> > > close
> > > > > to the
> > > > > > > > > > > release. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm mostly
> > just
> > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > administrative work for the next two weeks though - I
> > > > have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > things I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have to take care of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We had a
> > > contributer,
> > > > > Luc
> > > > > > > > > > > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting these last
> > few
> > > > > > > difficult
> > > > > > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or more of the
> > > > failing
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as LUCENE-493,
> > > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no longer get
> > > any
> > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > since the tests that are marked as culture
> > sensitive
> > > > are
> > > > > now
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still important and
> > should
> > > be
> > > > > > > handled.
> > > > > > > > > What
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott had done
> > > some
> > > > > work
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > also know this was requested by several in the
> > > > > community. I
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > love to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be able to
> > > pick
> > > > up
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > left off or take part of it, if they don't have
> > time
> > > to
> > > > > work
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it is pretty
> > > > much
> > > > > > > > > complete. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've looked several times at it to confirm most/all
> > > > > methods
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final check and
> > > close
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon Svensson <
> > > > > > > > > sisve@devhost.se>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using culture=sv-se
> > > seems
> > > > > fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What's the status on the failing tests we had?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Prescott
> > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some work, but
> > I'm
> > > > > good on
> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There are still a
> > > good
> > > > > > > number of
> > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and volatile
> > are
> > > > out
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > > > > > imo).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses some obsolete
> > > > > methods
> > > > > > > and we
> > > > > > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> variable declared but never used warnings
> > > > (mentally,
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > treat
> > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > warning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470
> > >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> much of this has been removed, there are
> > probably
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of opinion in the
> > group
> > > > as
> > > > > > > well).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding issue is
> > the
> > > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > > > > > one,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS compliance
> > we
> > > > > have to
> > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more is needed. I
> > > > > > > personally
> > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now, with the 3.0.3
> > > > > release,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the
> > > > > packaging/filesystem
> > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a little of both
> > > (ours
> > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > > > Apache's)...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of the Apache
> > > > > projects to
> > > > > > > > > see how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a structure
> > that
> > > > was
> > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed. So, it's
> > > > informed
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > organically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Prescott
> > Nasser
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we were using
> > Nant.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release structure". I
> > > > > figured a
> > > > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and .dll files into
> > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > directories. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki was actually
> > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be great
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21 -0400
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Prescott
> > > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious one, is listed
> > > only
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends tied up. I'll
> > > > > hopefully
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I did a quick
> > > > > search for
> > > > > > > > > > > 'public *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual methods -
> > > > perhaps a
> > > > > > > few to
> > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is important,
> > > but
> > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > way we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current state of this
> > > issue
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> names of public members are now compliant.
> > There
> > > > > are a
> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte (particularly those
> > > > > related to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected or
> > internal*
> > > > > fields
> > > > > > > (some
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one will be
> > > appreciated
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > most. My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on the amount of
> > > CLS
> > > > > > > > > compliance to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest into 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS compliant issues.
> > the
> > > > > sbyte
> > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > will run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting (I ran into
> > > this
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if we can't
> > get
> > > > rid
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I would not try
> > > > getting
> > > > > rid
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > sbyte or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release. It's going to
> > > take
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > serious
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we going to add
> > this
> > > > > code
> > > > > > > (not
> > > > > > > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the community
> > > > desire
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > this in
> > > > > > > > > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is related to
> > > builds
> > > > > being
> > > > > > > > > output
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do this for this
> > > > > release?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last weekend - I'm
> > > terrible
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > Nant, so
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to have, but I
> > don't
> > > > > think
> > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe make the
> > > > > adjustment,
> > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to look into
> > it,
> > > > but
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it or we don't
> > > when
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > rest
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso shots,
> > > anything
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this. Is there an
> > > > > official
> > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our* apache release
> > > > > structure
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and use that to
> > > > model
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build scripts are
> > a
> > > > > pita in
> > > > > > > > > general.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell or a
> > scripting
> > > > > > > language is
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mono
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs have it
> > already
> > > > > > > installed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time documenting it so
> > > that
> > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.

Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and coordinate
further later
On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <cu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I've got resharper and can help with that if you'd like to coordinate it.
>  I can take a one or some of the contrib projects or part of the main
> library, or *shudder* the any of the test libraries.  The code has needed
> come cleaning up for a while and some of the clean up work is an
> optimization some levels, so I'm definitely okay with spending some time
> doing that.  I'm okay with waiting longer as long as something is getting
> done.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Christopher
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com
> >wrote:
>
> > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper and
> trying
> > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly,
> removing
> > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files left.
> >
> > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some recent
> > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a bit
> more
> > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it).
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Itamar,
> > >
> > > Where do we stand on the clean up now?  Is there anything in particular
> > > that you're doing that you'd like help with?  I have some free time
> today
> > > and am eager to get this version released.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Christopher
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Alright, I'll hold off a bit.
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and would
> want
> > to
> > > > > complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption issue we
> > > raised.
> > > > > I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly do all
> that,
> > > but
> > > > > I'll keep you posted.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with the cls
> issues
> > at
> > > > > > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll with a release.
> If
> > > > people
> > > > > > could please take some time to run all the test as well as
> whatever
> > > > other
> > > > > > tests they might run. We've had some issues with tests only
> > happening
> > > > on
> > > > > > some systems so I want to make sure we have those bases covered.
> > > Unless
> > > > > > there is anything else that should be done, I'll leave every one
> a
> > > > week to
> > > > > > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk and cut a
> > release
> > > > with
> > > > > > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can set a different build target, but I can't set the actual
> > > > framework
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations. On top of
> > that,
> > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done automatically
> > in
> > > > .NET 4
> > > > > > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it automatically?). I did
> kinda
> > > get
> > > > it
> > > > > > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of 4.0 in Debug
> > and
> > > > > > Release
> > > > > > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5
> > configurations,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by hand since
> > visual
> > > > studio
> > > > > > > doesn't allow you to set different framework versions per
> > > > configuration,
> > > > > > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with references,
> > > since
> > > > both
> > > > > > > frameworks were being referenced.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project level? I
> created a
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and Release still,
> > that
> > > > > > seemed to
> > > > > > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing something in your
> > > > > > explaination.
> > > > > > > > Good work though!
> > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've got it working, compiling and all test passing...The
> > only
> > > > > > caveat is
> > > > > > > > > that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target. It doesn't
> > > really
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > a project level, so you'd have to create two separate
> > projects,
> > > > one
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I wrote a small
> tool
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > creates
> > > > > > > > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions to work
> > against
> > > > the
> > > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > > framework. Anyone have experience with multi-targeting like
> > > this?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Have at it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a little bit
> in
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > see what kind of progress I can make, since I have some
> > > time
> > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked into the 3.5
> > > branch,
> > > > > > there is
> > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > work to be done we could potentially move it to
> 3.0.3,
> > > but
> > > > I
> > > > > > put it
> > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to having this
> > > > > > released, and
> > > > > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > > > those changes would add a fair amount of change so
> > close
> > > > to the
> > > > > > > > > > release. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm mostly
> just
> > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > administrative work for the next two weeks though - I
> > > have
> > > > a
> > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > things I
> > > > > > > > > > > > have to take care of
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We had a
> > contributer,
> > > > Luc
> > > > > > > > > > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting these last
> few
> > > > > > difficult
> > > > > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or more of the
> > > failing
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as LUCENE-493,
> > > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no longer get
> > any
> > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > since the tests that are marked as culture
> sensitive
> > > are
> > > > now
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still important and
> should
> > be
> > > > > > handled.
> > > > > > > > What
> > > > > > > > > > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott had done
> > some
> > > > work
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > also know this was requested by several in the
> > > > community. I
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > love to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be able to
> > pick
> > > up
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > > > > > left off or take part of it, if they don't have
> time
> > to
> > > > work
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it is pretty
> > > much
> > > > > > > > complete. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've looked several times at it to confirm most/all
> > > > methods
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final check and
> > close
> > > > it
> > > > > > out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon Svensson <
> > > > > > > > sisve@devhost.se>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using culture=sv-se
> > seems
> > > > fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What's the status on the failing tests we had?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Prescott
> Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some work, but
> I'm
> > > > good on
> > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There are still a
> > good
> > > > > > number of
> > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and volatile
> are
> > > out
> > > > of
> > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > > > > imo).
> > > > > > > > > > > > In a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses some obsolete
> > > > methods
> > > > > > and we
> > > > > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> variable declared but never used warnings
> > > (mentally,
> > > > I
> > > > > > treat
> > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > warning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470
> >.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> much of this has been removed, there are
> probably
> > > > some
> > > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of opinion in the
> group
> > > as
> > > > > > well).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding issue is
> the
> > > CLS
> > > > > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > > > > one,
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS compliance
> we
> > > > have to
> > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more is needed. I
> > > > > > personally
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now, with the 3.0.3
> > > > release,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the
> > > > packaging/filesystem
> > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a little of both
> > (ours
> > > vs
> > > > > > > > > > Apache's)...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of the Apache
> > > > projects to
> > > > > > > > see how
> > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a structure
> that
> > > was
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed. So, it's
> > > informed
> > > > by
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > organically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Prescott
> Nasser
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we were using
> Nant.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release structure". I
> > > > figured a
> > > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and .dll files into
> > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > directories. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki was actually
> > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be great
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21 -0400
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Prescott
> > > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious one, is listed
> > only
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends tied up. I'll
> > > > hopefully
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I did a quick
> > > > search for
> > > > > > > > > > 'public *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual methods -
> > > perhaps a
> > > > > > few to
> > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is important,
> > but
> > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > way we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current state of this
> > issue
> > > > is
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> names of public members are now compliant.
> There
> > > > are a
> > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte (particularly those
> > > > related to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected or
> internal*
> > > > fields
> > > > > > (some
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one will be
> > appreciated
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > most. My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on the amount of
> > CLS
> > > > > > > > compliance to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest into 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS compliant issues.
> the
> > > > sbyte
> > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > will run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting (I ran into
> > this
> > > > issue
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if we can't
> get
> > > rid
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I would not try
> > > getting
> > > > rid
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > sbyte or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release. It's going to
> > take
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > serious
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we going to add
> this
> > > > code
> > > > > > (not
> > > > > > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the community
> > > desire
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > this in
> > > > > > > > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is related to
> > builds
> > > > being
> > > > > > > > output
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do this for this
> > > > release?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last weekend - I'm
> > terrible
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > Nant, so
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to have, but I
> don't
> > > > think
> > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe make the
> > > > adjustment,
> > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to look into
> it,
> > > but
> > > > I
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it or we don't
> > when
> > > > the
> > > > > > rest
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso shots,
> > anything
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this. Is there an
> > > > official
> > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our* apache release
> > > > structure
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and use that to
> > > model
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build scripts are
> a
> > > > pita in
> > > > > > > > general.
> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell or a
> scripting
> > > > > > language is
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > mono
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs have it
> already
> > > > > > installed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time documenting it so
> > that
> > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Christopher Currens <cu...@gmail.com>.

I've got resharper and can help with that if you'd like to coordinate it.
 I can take a one or some of the contrib projects or part of the main
library, or *shudder* the any of the test libraries.  The code has needed
come cleaning up for a while and some of the clean up work is an
optimization some levels, so I'm definitely okay with spending some time
doing that.  I'm okay with waiting longer as long as something is getting
done.


Thanks,
Christopher

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>wrote:

> The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper and trying
> to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly, removing
> unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files left.
>
> I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some recent
> updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a bit more
> time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it).
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
> currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Itamar,
> >
> > Where do we stand on the clean up now?  Is there anything in particular
> > that you're doing that you'd like help with?  I have some free time today
> > and am eager to get this version released.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Christopher
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Alright, I'll hold off a bit.
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > > > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > > > Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and would want
> to
> > > > complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption issue we
> > raised.
> > > > I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly do all that,
> > but
> > > > I'll keep you posted.
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with the cls issues
> at
> > > > > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll with a release. If
> > > people
> > > > > could please take some time to run all the test as well as whatever
> > > other
> > > > > tests they might run. We've had some issues with tests only
> happening
> > > on
> > > > > some systems so I want to make sure we have those bases covered.
> > Unless
> > > > > there is anything else that should be done, I'll leave every one a
> > > week to
> > > > > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk and cut a
> release
> > > with
> > > > > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can set a different build target, but I can't set the actual
> > > framework
> > > > > to
> > > > > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations. On top of
> that,
> > > 3.5
> > > > > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done automatically
> in
> > > .NET 4
> > > > > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it automatically?). I did kinda
> > get
> > > it
> > > > > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of 4.0 in Debug
> and
> > > > > Release
> > > > > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5
> configurations,
> > > but
> > > > > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by hand since
> visual
> > > studio
> > > > > > doesn't allow you to set different framework versions per
> > > configuration,
> > > > > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with references,
> > since
> > > both
> > > > > > frameworks were being referenced.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project level? I created a
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and Release still,
> that
> > > > > seemed to
> > > > > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing something in your
> > > > > explaination.
> > > > > > > Good work though!
> > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've got it working, compiling and all test passing...The
> only
> > > > > caveat is
> > > > > > > > that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target. It doesn't
> > really
> > > > > work
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > a project level, so you'd have to create two separate
> projects,
> > > one
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I wrote a small tool
> > > that
> > > > > > > creates
> > > > > > > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions to work
> against
> > > the
> > > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > > framework. Anyone have experience with multi-targeting like
> > this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Have at it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a little bit in
> > > that
> > > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > see what kind of progress I can make, since I have some
> > time
> > > > > right
> > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked into the 3.5
> > branch,
> > > > > there is
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > work to be done we could potentially move it to 3.0.3,
> > but
> > > I
> > > > > put it
> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to having this
> > > > > released, and
> > > > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > > those changes would add a fair amount of change so
> close
> > > to the
> > > > > > > > > release. I
> > > > > > > > > > > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm mostly just
> > > doing
> > > > > > > > > > > administrative work for the next two weeks though - I
> > have
> > > a
> > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > things I
> > > > > > > > > > > have to take care of
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We had a
> contributer,
> > > Luc
> > > > > > > > > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > > > > > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting these last few
> > > > > difficult
> > > > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or more of the
> > failing
> > > > > tests
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as LUCENE-493,
> > with
> > > the
> > > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no longer get
> any
> > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > > > since the tests that are marked as culture sensitive
> > are
> > > now
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still important and should
> be
> > > > > handled.
> > > > > > > What
> > > > > > > > > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott had done
> some
> > > work
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > also know this was requested by several in the
> > > community. I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > love to
> > > > > > > > > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be able to
> pick
> > up
> > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > > > > left off or take part of it, if they don't have time
> to
> > > work
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it is pretty
> > much
> > > > > > > complete. I
> > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've looked several times at it to confirm most/all
> > > methods
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final check and
> close
> > > it
> > > > > out.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon Svensson <
> > > > > > > sisve@devhost.se>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using culture=sv-se
> seems
> > > fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> What's the status on the failing tests we had?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some work, but I'm
> > > good on
> > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446>.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There are still a
> good
> > > > > number of
> > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and volatile are
> > out
> > > of
> > > > > scope
> > > > > > > > > imo).
> > > > > > > > > > > In a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses some obsolete
> > > methods
> > > > > and we
> > > > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> variable declared but never used warnings
> > (mentally,
> > > I
> > > > > treat
> > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > warning
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470>.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> much of this has been removed, there are probably
> > > some
> > > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of opinion in the group
> > as
> > > > > well).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding issue is the
> > CLS
> > > > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > > > one,
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS compliance we
> > > have to
> > > > > ask
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more is needed. I
> > > > > personally
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now, with the 3.0.3
> > > release,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the
> > > packaging/filesystem
> > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a little of both
> (ours
> > vs
> > > > > > > > > Apache's)...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of the Apache
> > > projects to
> > > > > > > see how
> > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a structure that
> > was
> > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed. So, it's
> > informed
> > > by
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > organically
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Prescott Nasser
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we were using Nant.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release structure". I
> > > figured a
> > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and .dll files into
> > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > directories. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki was actually
> > > pretty
> > > > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be great
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21 -0400
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Prescott
> > Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious one, is listed
> only
> > > > > because
> > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends tied up. I'll
> > > hopefully
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I did a quick
> > > search for
> > > > > > > > > 'public *
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual methods -
> > perhaps a
> > > > > few to
> > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is important,
> but
> > > > > there's
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > way we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current state of this
> issue
> > > is
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> names of public members are now compliant. There
> > > are a
> > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte (particularly those
> > > related to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected or internal*
> > > fields
> > > > > (some
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one will be
> appreciated
> > > the
> > > > > > > most. My
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on the amount of
> CLS
> > > > > > > compliance to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest into 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS compliant issues. the
> > > sbyte
> > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > will run
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting (I ran into
> this
> > > issue
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if we can't get
> > rid
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I would not try
> > getting
> > > rid
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > sbyte or
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release. It's going to
> take
> > > some
> > > > > > > serious
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we going to add this
> > > code
> > > > > (not
> > > > > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the community
> > desire
> > > for
> > > > > > > this in
> > > > > > > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is related to
> builds
> > > being
> > > > > > > output
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do this for this
> > > release?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last weekend - I'm
> terrible
> > > with
> > > > > > > Nant, so
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to have, but I don't
> > > think
> > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe make the
> > > adjustment,
> > > > > he
> > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to look into it,
> > but
> > > I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it or we don't
> when
> > > the
> > > > > rest
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso shots,
> anything
> > > is
> > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this. Is there an
> > > official
> > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our* apache release
> > > structure
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and use that to
> > model
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build scripts are a
> > > pita in
> > > > > > > general.
> > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell or a scripting
> > > > > language is
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > mono
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs have it already
> > > > > installed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time documenting it so
> that
> > > > > others
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.

The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper and trying
to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly, removing
unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files left.

I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some recent
updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a bit more
time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it).

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:

> Itamar,
>
> Where do we stand on the clean up now?  Is there anything in particular
> that you're doing that you'd like help with?  I have some free time today
> and am eager to get this version released.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Christopher
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > Alright, I'll hold off a bit.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > > Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and would want to
> > > complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption issue we
> raised.
> > > I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly do all that,
> but
> > > I'll keep you posted.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with the cls issues at
> > > > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll with a release. If
> > people
> > > > could please take some time to run all the test as well as whatever
> > other
> > > > tests they might run. We've had some issues with tests only happening
> > on
> > > > some systems so I want to make sure we have those bases covered.
> Unless
> > > > there is anything else that should be done, I'll leave every one a
> > week to
> > > > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk and cut a release
> > with
> > > > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > I can set a different build target, but I can't set the actual
> > framework
> > > > to
> > > > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations. On top of that,
> > 3.5
> > > > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done automatically in
> > .NET 4
> > > > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it automatically?). I did kinda
> get
> > it
> > > > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of 4.0 in Debug and
> > > > Release
> > > > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5 configurations,
> > but
> > > > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by hand since visual
> > studio
> > > > > doesn't allow you to set different framework versions per
> > configuration,
> > > > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with references,
> since
> > both
> > > > > frameworks were being referenced.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project level? I created a
> > > > different
> > > > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and Release still, that
> > > > seemed to
> > > > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing something in your
> > > > explaination.
> > > > > > Good work though!
> > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've got it working, compiling and all test passing...The only
> > > > caveat is
> > > > > > > that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target. It doesn't
> really
> > > > work
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > a project level, so you'd have to create two separate projects,
> > one
> > > > for
> > > > > > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I wrote a small tool
> > that
> > > > > > creates
> > > > > > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions to work against
> > the
> > > > 3.5
> > > > > > > framework. Anyone have experience with multi-targeting like
> this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Have at it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a little bit in
> > that
> > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > see what kind of progress I can make, since I have some
> time
> > > > right
> > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked into the 3.5
> branch,
> > > > there is
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > work to be done we could potentially move it to 3.0.3,
> but
> > I
> > > > put it
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to having this
> > > > released, and
> > > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > those changes would add a fair amount of change so close
> > to the
> > > > > > > > release. I
> > > > > > > > > > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm mostly just
> > doing
> > > > > > > > > > administrative work for the next two weeks though - I
> have
> > a
> > > > few
> > > > > > > > things I
> > > > > > > > > > have to take care of
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We had a contributer,
> > Luc
> > > > > > > > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > > > > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting these last few
> > > > difficult
> > > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or more of the
> failing
> > > > tests
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as LUCENE-493,
> with
> > the
> > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no longer get any
> > > > culture
> > > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > > since the tests that are marked as culture sensitive
> are
> > now
> > > > all
> > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still important and should be
> > > > handled.
> > > > > > What
> > > > > > > > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott had done some
> > work
> > > > on
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > also know this was requested by several in the
> > community. I
> > > > would
> > > > > > > > love to
> > > > > > > > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be able to pick
> up
> > > > where
> > > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > > > left off or take part of it, if they don't have time to
> > work
> > > > on
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it is pretty
> much
> > > > > > complete. I
> > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > I've looked several times at it to confirm most/all
> > methods
> > > > have
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final check and close
> > it
> > > > out.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon Svensson <
> > > > > > sisve@devhost.se>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using culture=sv-se seems
> > fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> What's the status on the failing tests we had?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some work, but I'm
> > good on
> > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446>.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There are still a good
> > > > number of
> > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and volatile are
> out
> > of
> > > > scope
> > > > > > > > imo).
> > > > > > > > > > In a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses some obsolete
> > methods
> > > > and we
> > > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> variable declared but never used warnings
> (mentally,
> > I
> > > > treat
> > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > warning
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470>.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> much of this has been removed, there are probably
> > some
> > > > pieces
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of opinion in the group
> as
> > > > well).
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding issue is the
> CLS
> > > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > > one,
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS compliance we
> > have to
> > > > ask
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more is needed. I
> > > > personally
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now, with the 3.0.3
> > release,
> > > > but
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the
> > packaging/filesystem
> > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a little of both (ours
> vs
> > > > > > > > Apache's)...
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of the Apache
> > projects to
> > > > > > see how
> > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a structure that
> was
> > > > very
> > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed. So, it's
> informed
> > by
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > organically
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Prescott Nasser
> <
> > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we were using Nant.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release structure". I
> > figured a
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and .dll files into
> > separate
> > > > > > > > > > directories. The
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki was actually
> > pretty
> > > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be great
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21 -0400
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Prescott
> Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious one, is listed only
> > > > because
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends tied up. I'll
> > hopefully
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I did a quick
> > search for
> > > > > > > > 'public *
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual methods -
> perhaps a
> > > > few to
> > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is important, but
> > > > there's
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > way we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current state of this issue
> > is
> > > > that
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> names of public members are now compliant. There
> > are a
> > > > few
> > > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte (particularly those
> > related to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected or internal*
> > fields
> > > > (some
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one will be appreciated
> > the
> > > > > > most. My
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on the amount of CLS
> > > > > > compliance to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest into 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS compliant issues. the
> > sbyte
> > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > will run
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting (I ran into this
> > issue
> > > > when
> > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if we can't get
> rid
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I would not try
> getting
> > rid
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > sbyte or
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release. It's going to take
> > some
> > > > > > serious
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we going to add this
> > code
> > > > (not
> > > > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the community
> desire
> > for
> > > > > > this in
> > > > > > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is related to builds
> > being
> > > > > > output
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do this for this
> > release?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last weekend - I'm terrible
> > with
> > > > > > Nant, so
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to have, but I don't
> > think
> > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe make the
> > adjustment,
> > > > he
> > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to look into it,
> but
> > I
> > > > don't
> > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it or we don't when
> > the
> > > > rest
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso shots, anything
> > is
> > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this. Is there an
> > official
> > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our* apache release
> > structure
> > > > that
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and use that to
> model
> > the
> > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build scripts are a
> > pita in
> > > > > > general.
> > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell or a scripting
> > > > language is
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > mono
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs have it already
> > > > installed.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time documenting it so that
> > > > others
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Christopher Currens <cu...@gmail.com>.

Itamar,

Where do we stand on the clean up now?  Is there anything in particular
that you're doing that you'd like help with?  I have some free time today
and am eager to get this version released.


Thanks,
Christopher


On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> Alright, I'll hold off a bit.
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > From: itamar@code972.com
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >
> > Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and would want to
> > complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption issue we raised.
> > I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly do all that, but
> > I'll keep you posted.
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with the cls issues at
> > > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll with a release. If
> people
> > > could please take some time to run all the test as well as whatever
> other
> > > tests they might run. We've had some issues with tests only happening
> on
> > > some systems so I want to make sure we have those bases covered. Unless
> > > there is anything else that should be done, I'll leave every one a
> week to
> > > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk and cut a release
> with
> > > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > > > I can set a different build target, but I can't set the actual
> framework
> > > to
> > > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations. On top of that,
> 3.5
> > > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done automatically in
> .NET 4
> > > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it automatically?). I did kinda get
> it
> > > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of 4.0 in Debug and
> > > Release
> > > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5 configurations,
> but
> > > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by hand since visual
> studio
> > > > doesn't allow you to set different framework versions per
> configuration,
> > > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with references, since
> both
> > > > frameworks were being referenced.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project level? I created a
> > > different
> > > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and Release still, that
> > > seemed to
> > > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing something in your
> > > explaination.
> > > > > Good work though!
> > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've got it working, compiling and all test passing...The only
> > > caveat is
> > > > > > that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target. It doesn't really
> > > work
> > > > > on
> > > > > > a project level, so you'd have to create two separate projects,
> one
> > > for
> > > > > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I wrote a small tool
> that
> > > > > creates
> > > > > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions to work against
> the
> > > 3.5
> > > > > > framework. Anyone have experience with multi-targeting like this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Have at it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a little bit in
> that
> > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > see what kind of progress I can make, since I have some time
> > > right
> > > > > now.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked into the 3.5 branch,
> > > there is
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > work to be done we could potentially move it to 3.0.3, but
> I
> > > put it
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to having this
> > > released, and
> > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > those changes would add a fair amount of change so close
> to the
> > > > > > > release. I
> > > > > > > > > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm mostly just
> doing
> > > > > > > > > administrative work for the next two weeks though - I have
> a
> > > few
> > > > > > > things I
> > > > > > > > > have to take care of
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We had a contributer,
> Luc
> > > > > > > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > > > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting these last few
> > > difficult
> > > > > bugs
> > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or more of the failing
> > > tests
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as LUCENE-493, with
> the
> > > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no longer get any
> > > culture
> > > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > > since the tests that are marked as culture sensitive are
> now
> > > all
> > > > > run
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still important and should be
> > > handled.
> > > > > What
> > > > > > > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott had done some
> work
> > > on
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > also know this was requested by several in the
> community. I
> > > would
> > > > > > > love to
> > > > > > > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be able to pick up
> > > where
> > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > > left off or take part of it, if they don't have time to
> work
> > > on
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it is pretty much
> > > > > complete. I
> > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > I've looked several times at it to confirm most/all
> methods
> > > have
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final check and close
> it
> > > out.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon Svensson <
> > > > > sisve@devhost.se>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using culture=sv-se seems
> fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> What's the status on the failing tests we had?
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some work, but I'm
> good on
> > > > > this,
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446>.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > > > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There are still a good
> > > number of
> > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and volatile are out
> of
> > > scope
> > > > > > > imo).
> > > > > > > > > In a
> > > > > > > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses some obsolete
> methods
> > > and we
> > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > > >>> variable declared but never used warnings (mentally,
> I
> > > treat
> > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > warning
> > > > > > > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470>.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > > > > > >>> much of this has been removed, there are probably
> some
> > > pieces
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of opinion in the group as
> > > well).
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding issue is the CLS
> > > > > compliance
> > > > > > > one,
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS compliance we
> have to
> > > ask
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more is needed. I
> > > personally
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now, with the 3.0.3
> release,
> > > but
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the
> packaging/filesystem
> > > > > structure
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a little of both (ours vs
> > > > > > > Apache's)...
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of the Apache
> projects to
> > > > > see how
> > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a structure that was
> > > very
> > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed. So, it's informed
> by
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > organically
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we were using Nant.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release structure". I
> figured a
> > > > > little
> > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and .dll files into
> separate
> > > > > > > > > directories. The
> > > > > > > > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki was actually
> pretty
> > > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be great
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21 -0400
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious one, is listed only
> > > because
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends tied up. I'll
> hopefully
> > > have
> > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I did a quick
> search for
> > > > > > > 'public *
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual methods - perhaps a
> > > few to
> > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is important, but
> > > there's
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > way we
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current state of this issue
> is
> > > that
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> names of public members are now compliant. There
> are a
> > > few
> > > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte (particularly those
> related to
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected or internal*
> fields
> > > (some
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one will be appreciated
> the
> > > > > most. My
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on the amount of CLS
> > > > > compliance to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest into 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS compliant issues. the
> sbyte
> > > stuff
> > > > > > > will run
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting (I ran into this
> issue
> > > when
> > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if we can't get rid
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I would not try getting
> rid
> > > of
> > > > > > > sbyte or
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release. It's going to take
> some
> > > > > serious
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we going to add this
> code
> > > (not
> > > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the community desire
> for
> > > > > this in
> > > > > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is related to builds
> being
> > > > > output
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do this for this
> release?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last weekend - I'm terrible
> with
> > > > > Nant, so
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to have, but I don't
> think
> > > I'll
> > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe make the
> adjustment,
> > > he
> > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to look into it, but
> I
> > > don't
> > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it or we don't when
> the
> > > rest
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso shots, anything
> is
> > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this. Is there an
> official
> > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our* apache release
> structure
> > > that
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and use that to model
> the
> > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build scripts are a
> pita in
> > > > > general.
> > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell or a scripting
> > > language is
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > mono
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs have it already
> > > installed.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time documenting it so that
> > > others
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
>

RE: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.

Alright, I'll hold off a bit.

----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: itamar@code972.com
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and would want to
> complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption issue we raised.
> I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly do all that, but
> I'll keep you posted.
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with the cls issues at
> > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll with a release. If people
> > could please take some time to run all the test as well as whatever other
> > tests they might run. We've had some issues with tests only happening on
> > some systems so I want to make sure we have those bases covered. Unless
> > there is anything else that should be done, I'll leave every one a week to
> > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk and cut a release with
> > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > > I can set a different build target, but I can't set the actual framework
> > to
> > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations. On top of that, 3.5
> > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done automatically in .NET 4
> > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it automatically?). I did kinda get it
> > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of 4.0 in Debug and
> > Release
> > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5 configurations, but
> > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by hand since visual studio
> > > doesn't allow you to set different framework versions per configuration,
> > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with references, since both
> > > frameworks were being referenced.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project level? I created a
> > different
> > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and Release still, that
> > seemed to
> > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing something in your
> > explaination.
> > > > Good work though!
> > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > I've got it working, compiling and all test passing...The only
> > caveat is
> > > > > that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target. It doesn't really
> > work
> > > > on
> > > > > a project level, so you'd have to create two separate projects, one
> > for
> > > > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I wrote a small tool that
> > > > creates
> > > > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions to work against the
> > 3.5
> > > > > framework. Anyone have experience with multi-targeting like this?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Christopher
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have at it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a little bit in that
> > > > branch,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > see what kind of progress I can make, since I have some time
> > right
> > > > now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked into the 3.5 branch,
> > there is
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > work to be done we could potentially move it to 3.0.3, but I
> > put it
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to having this
> > released, and
> > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > those changes would add a fair amount of change so close to the
> > > > > > release. I
> > > > > > > > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm mostly just doing
> > > > > > > > administrative work for the next two weeks though - I have a
> > few
> > > > > > things I
> > > > > > > > have to take care of
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We had a contributer, Luc
> > > > > > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting these last few
> > difficult
> > > > bugs
> > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or more of the failing
> > tests
> > > > from
> > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as LUCENE-493, with the
> > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no longer get any
> > culture
> > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > since the tests that are marked as culture sensitive are now
> > all
> > > > run
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still important and should be
> > handled.
> > > > What
> > > > > > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott had done some work
> > on
> > > > this
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > also know this was requested by several in the community. I
> > would
> > > > > > love to
> > > > > > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be able to pick up
> > where
> > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > left off or take part of it, if they don't have time to work
> > on
> > > > it.
> > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it is pretty much
> > > > complete. I
> > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > I've looked several times at it to confirm most/all methods
> > have
> > > > been
> > > > > > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final check and close it
> > out.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon Svensson <
> > > > sisve@devhost.se>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using culture=sv-se seems fixed.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> What's the status on the failing tests we had?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some work, but I'm good on
> > > > this,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > > > > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446>.
> > > > > > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There are still a good
> > number of
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and volatile are out of
> > scope
> > > > > > imo).
> > > > > > > > In a
> > > > > > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses some obsolete methods
> > and we
> > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>> variable declared but never used warnings (mentally, I
> > treat
> > > > most
> > > > > > > > warning
> > > > > > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470>.
> > > > > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > > > > >>> much of this has been removed, there are probably some
> > pieces
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of opinion in the group as
> > well).
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding issue is the CLS
> > > > compliance
> > > > > > one,
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS compliance we have to
> > ask
> > > > if
> > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more is needed. I
> > personally
> > > > would
> > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now, with the 3.0.3 release,
> > but
> > > > if
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37 -0700
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the packaging/filesystem
> > > > structure
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a little of both (ours vs
> > > > > > Apache's)...
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of the Apache projects to
> > > > see how
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a structure that was
> > very
> > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed. So, it's informed by
> > the
> > > > > > > > organically
> > > > > > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we were using Nant.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release structure". I figured a
> > > > little
> > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and .dll files into separate
> > > > > > > > directories. The
> > > > > > > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki was actually pretty
> > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be great
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21 -0400
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious one, is listed only
> > because
> > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends tied up. I'll hopefully
> > have
> > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I did a quick search for
> > > > > > 'public *
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual methods - perhaps a
> > few to
> > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is important, but
> > there's
> > > > no
> > > > > > way we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current state of this issue is
> > that
> > > > all
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> names of public members are now compliant. There are a
> > few
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte (particularly those related to
> > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected or internal* fields
> > (some
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one will be appreciated the
> > > > most. My
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on the amount of CLS
> > > > compliance to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest into 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS compliant issues. the sbyte
> > stuff
> > > > > > will run
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting (I ran into this issue
> > when
> > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if we can't get rid of
> > the
> > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I would not try getting rid
> > of
> > > > > > sbyte or
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release. It's going to take some
> > > > serious
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we going to add this code
> > (not
> > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the community desire for
> > > > this in
> > > > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is related to builds being
> > > > output
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do this for this release?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last weekend - I'm terrible with
> > > > Nant, so
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to have, but I don't think
> > I'll
> > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe make the adjustment,
> > he
> > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to look into it, but I
> > don't
> > > > call
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it or we don't when the
> > rest
> > > > is
> > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso shots, anything is
> > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this. Is there an official
> > > > apache
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our* apache release structure
> > that
> > > > we
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and use that to model the
> > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build scripts are a pita in
> > > > general.
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell or a scripting
> > language is
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > mono
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs have it already
> > installed.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time documenting it so that
> > others
> > > > can
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >

RE: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.

Alright, I'll hold off a bit.

----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: itamar@code972.com
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and would want to
> complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption issue we raised.
> I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly do all that, but
> I'll keep you posted.
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with the cls issues at
> > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll with a release. If people
> > could please take some time to run all the test as well as whatever other
> > tests they might run. We've had some issues with tests only happening on
> > some systems so I want to make sure we have those bases covered. Unless
> > there is anything else that should be done, I'll leave every one a week to
> > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk and cut a release with
> > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P
> > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700
> > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > > I can set a different build target, but I can't set the actual framework
> > to
> > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations. On top of that, 3.5
> > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done automatically in .NET 4
> > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it automatically?). I did kinda get it
> > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of 4.0 in Debug and
> > Release
> > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5 configurations, but
> > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by hand since visual studio
> > > doesn't allow you to set different framework versions per configuration,
> > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with references, since both
> > > frameworks were being referenced.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project level? I created a
> > different
> > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and Release still, that
> > seemed to
> > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing something in your
> > explaination.
> > > > Good work though!
> > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > I've got it working, compiling and all test passing...The only
> > caveat is
> > > > > that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target. It doesn't really
> > work
> > > > on
> > > > > a project level, so you'd have to create two separate projects, one
> > for
> > > > > .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I wrote a small tool that
> > > > creates
> > > > > copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions to work against the
> > 3.5
> > > > > framework. Anyone have experience with multi-targeting like this?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Christopher
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have at it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a little bit in that
> > > > branch,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > see what kind of progress I can make, since I have some time
> > right
> > > > now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked into the 3.5 branch,
> > there is
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > work to be done we could potentially move it to 3.0.3, but I
> > put it
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to having this
> > released, and
> > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > those changes would add a fair amount of change so close to the
> > > > > > release. I
> > > > > > > > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm mostly just doing
> > > > > > > > administrative work for the next two weeks though - I have a
> > few
> > > > > > things I
> > > > > > > > have to take care of
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > From: currens.chris@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We had a contributer, Luc
> > > > > > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting these last few
> > difficult
> > > > bugs
> > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or more of the failing
> > tests
> > > > from
> > > > > > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as LUCENE-493, with the
> > > > culture
> > > > > > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no longer get any
> > culture
> > > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > > > since the tests that are marked as culture sensitive are now
> > all
> > > > run
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still important and should be
> > handled.
> > > > What
> > > > > > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott had done some work
> > on
> > > > this
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > also know this was requested by several in the community. I
> > would
> > > > > > love to
> > > > > > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be able to pick up
> > where
> > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > left off or take part of it, if they don't have time to work
> > on
> > > > it.
> > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it is pretty much
> > > > complete. I
> > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > I've looked several times at it to confirm most/all methods
> > have
> > > > been
> > > > > > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final check and close it
> > out.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon Svensson <
> > > > sisve@devhost.se>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using culture=sv-se seems fixed.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> What's the status on the failing tests we had?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some work, but I'm good on
> > > > this,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > > > > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446>.
> > > > > > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There are still a good
> > number of
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and volatile are out of
> > scope
> > > > > > imo).
> > > > > > > > In a
> > > > > > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses some obsolete methods
> > and we
> > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>> variable declared but never used warnings (mentally, I
> > treat
> > > > most
> > > > > > > > warning
> > > > > > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470>.
> > > > > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > > > > >>> much of this has been removed, there are probably some
> > pieces
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > left
> > > > > > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of opinion in the group as
> > well).
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding issue is the CLS
> > > > compliance
> > > > > > one,
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS compliance we have to
> > ask
> > > > if
> > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > >>> done
> > > > > > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more is needed. I
> > personally
> > > > would
> > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now, with the 3.0.3 release,
> > but
> > > > if
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37 -0700
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the packaging/filesystem
> > > > structure
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a little of both (ours vs
> > > > > > Apache's)...
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of the Apache projects to
> > > > see how
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a structure that was
> > very
> > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed. So, it's informed by
> > the
> > > > > > > > organically
> > > > > > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we were using Nant.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release structure". I figured a
> > > > little
> > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and .dll files into separate
> > > > > > > > directories. The
> > > > > > > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki was actually pretty
> > > > helpful.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be great
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21 -0400
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious one, is listed only
> > because
> > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends tied up. I'll hopefully
> > have
> > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I did a quick search for
> > > > > > 'public *
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual methods - perhaps a
> > few to
> > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is important, but
> > there's
> > > > no
> > > > > > way we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current state of this issue is
> > that
> > > > all
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> names of public members are now compliant. There are a
> > few
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte (particularly those related to
> > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected or internal* fields
> > (some
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one will be appreciated the
> > > > most. My
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on the amount of CLS
> > > > compliance to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest into 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS compliant issues. the sbyte
> > stuff
> > > > > > will run
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting (I ran into this issue
> > when
> > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if we can't get rid of
> > the
> > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I would not try getting rid
> > of
> > > > > > sbyte or
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release. It's going to take some
> > > > serious
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we going to add this code
> > (not
> > > > > > present
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the community desire for
> > > > this in
> > > > > > 3.5.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is related to builds being
> > > > output
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do this for this release?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last weekend - I'm terrible with
> > > > Nant, so
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to have, but I don't think
> > I'll
> > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe make the adjustment,
> > he
> > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to look into it, but I
> > don't
> > > > call
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it or we don't when the
> > rest
> > > > is
> > > > > > done.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso shots, anything is
> > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this. Is there an official
> > > > apache
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our* apache release structure
> > that
> > > > we
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and use that to model the
> > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build scripts are a pita in
> > > > general.
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell or a scripting
> > language is
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > mono
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs have it already
> > installed.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time documenting it so that
> > others
> > > > can
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.

Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and would want to
complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption issue we raised.
I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly do all that, but
I'll keep you posted.

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

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

Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3

Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.

Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and would want to
complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption issue we raised.
I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly do all that, but
I'll keep you posted.

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

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