There were requests to support windows mobile phone, Win RT, etc. Also whatever test suite we use and whatever tests we write need to work/execute on Mono
Most likely that will cause friction with a straight port as we'll need to work around limitations if we fulfill those requests. On the flip side, it would be expand Lucene.Net into niche arenas. -Michael On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > > >> > > >
