Tremendously. The Codecs API is the biggest change, and there are many more, including namespace changes.
I gave it some thought and I believe nuking master and starting fresh is the best way to go. First step would be to actually do a line-by-line port except for getters/setters and data structures, and then we can specialize classes to use more advanced .NET features. I believe a custom Directory implementation should be created in its own class, not instead of the line-by-line port. Starting fresh would help in refactoring bits of code as we do, and is much quicker than comparing diffs when there's a lot of changes to account for. We can copy-paste or reuse code from 3.0 when handling code that we know hasn't changed too much. I'd also push for revamping the test suite - making it use xunit and using helper methods so we can copy-paste tests from Java and minimize the amount of changes required. We don't really care about code quality there, we just need the tests to pass. After having a fully working port, we can dive in and replace inner parts with .NET specific implementations, like better async support all around. Thoughts? On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Nicholas Paldino < [email protected]> wrote: > How much has it changed? If its significant I'd suggest starting clean > and taking advantage of .net specific features: > > Task<T> and async I/O on Directory > Deferred execution with yield return/break with IEnumerable<T> > Better support for generics > > The first item is really the big win; scalability can be improved by not > having to block threads on I/O operations. > > - Nick > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:58 PM, "Itamar Syn-Hershko" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I've been working with the 4.x Java code base for a while - the API has > > significantly changed from 3.0 so the question is do we start clean or > > replace parts? > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Christopher Currens < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Yes. I think that's good. We need to come up with a plan, though, and > >> start distributing work. > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected] > >>> wrote: > >> > >>> Nope, lets start dev'ing > >>> > >>> Lucene 4.2 work in master, 3.x in dedicated branches? > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Prescott Nasser < > [email protected] > >>>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I think we agreed pull requests got a jira ticket with the details and > >>>> then we reviewed it. > >>>> > >>>> Also lucene 3.6 would support 3.5 still, 4.0 would go 4.0 > >>>> > >>>> Any issues? > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my Windows Phone > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> From: mherndon michael > >>>> Sent: 2/20/2013 5:26 AM > >>>> To: [email protected] > >>>> Subject: Re: Long-terms plans for supporting .NET 3.5 > >>>> > >>>> Did we ever agree on how to handle pull requests on github? There are > >> at > >>>> currently least four pull requests on github. > >>>> > >>>> Also what is the official git repo now for Lucene.Net ? > >>>> > >>>> Are we moving forward on 4.0 and if so how do we want to proceed with > >>> that? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -M > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko < > >> [email protected] > >>>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I suppose all that is left now is to agree on a plan for moving > >>> forward? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Prescott Nasser < > >>> [email protected] > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Repo is writable!> From: [email protected] > >>>>>>> Subject: RE: Long-terms plans for supporting .NET 3.5 > >>>>>>> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:50:03 -0800 > >>>>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hey itamar - I've been emailing private, its read only until we > >>>> approve > >>>>>> it. Chris and I thought it looked good and I was waiting a bit to > >>> hear > >>>>> from > >>>>>> others. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ill put in to have them flip it to writable today. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone > >>>>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>>>> From: Itamar Syn-Hershko > >>>>>>> Sent: 2/17/2013 3:11 AM > >>>>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Long-terms plans for supporting .NET 3.5 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Prescott, any updates on this? I can see they opened a repo for > >> us, > >>>> but > >>>>>> not > >>>>>>> sure whats the status on this? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Prescott Nasser < > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5797. I added > >>> details > >>>>>> about > >>>>>>>> the hook email. I'll keep you guy posted. I'm been MIA - > >> closing > >>>> the > >>>>>> yearly > >>>>>>>> books for work, I should be through it in another week and then > >>>> back > >>>>> on > >>>>>>>> track and I'll join the conversation on the road map > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> From: [email protected] > >>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Long-terms plans for supporting .NET 3.5 > >>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:24:58 +0100 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 2013-01-24, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Troy Howard < > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The main thing is ensuring that we consider the ASF git > >> repo > >>>> for > >>>>>>>> Lucene.Net > >>>>>>>>>>> to be the primary source of truth (once we move over to > >> it) > >>>> Any > >>>>>> PRs > >>>>>>>> on the > >>>>>>>>>>> Github mirror will need to be merged back into the ASF git > >>>> repo. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We don't have to work against github. Actually, perhaps we > >>>> better > >>>>>> work > >>>>>>>>>> against an ASF's git repo and have it auto-mirrored to > >>> github. > >>>>> The > >>>>>> way > >>>>>>>> git > >>>>>>>>>> works, all you have to do to merge a PR is add the other > >> repo > >>>> as > >>>>> a > >>>>>>>> remote, > >>>>>>>>>> fetch and merge. Github should detect that as closing the > >> PR > >>> - > >>>>> and > >>>>>> we > >>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>> probably verify that with them. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sounds great. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Either way, I would recommend setting up a hook to email > >> this > >>>>> list > >>>>>> with > >>>>>>>>>> notifications about incoming PRs, just so everyone is > >>> notified. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The rest of Stefan's worries are all covered by good > >>> guidelines > >>>>> on > >>>>>> how > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> work with PRs / github tools - voting etc. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Probably yes. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So, how do we proceed? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Basically we ask the ASF's INFRA team (via JIRA) to create a > >>>>> writable > >>>>>>>>> git repo for us. It would probably be best if Prescott as > >>>> chairman > >>>>>>>>> could drive this. At one point in time projects moving to > >> git > >>>> had > >>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> name a team member who'd be willing to help with the > >> migration. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Stefan > >> >
