Prescott, Could you add me as well? Username NightOwl888 ([email protected]).
Thanks -----Original Message----- From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 4:35 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: API Work/Stabilization Update In the past I think we agreed PMC members could be added as an owner if they wanted. If we wanted something past that we should probably talk about it. -----Original Message----- From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 2:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: API Work/Stabilization Update Thanks -- got it and accepted. We will probably need to add a few more, is there a "right" way to do that so the ownership stays clean? On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:30 PM Prescott Nasser <[email protected]> wrote: > Invited you to the 4 Lucene.Net packages we have up there > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 2:28 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: API Work/Stabilization Update > > Thanks Prescott -- that clears up that mystery. Username is wwb, email > is [email protected] if it matters. > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:25 PM Prescott Nasser > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > All PMC members should have ownership of the nuget packages - if you > > have a username I can add you as ownership... or I can just get you > > the keys > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 2:22 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: API Work/Stabilization Update > > > > Shad -- definitely makes sense. > > > > Json files are fine -- functionally this is a bit too fancy to use > > Teamcity's automagic nuget package generation so as long as we've > > got a file to edit we are fine. > > > > Myget -> nuget works for me but that doesn't solve the key problem. > > I don't have it, maybe Prescott or Itamar know where it is kept but > > I can't claim to have ever seen it. I joined this party after the > > last > nuget push. > > > > It is a bit foggy but I think I ran into the nunit-console issue > > with the > > Build.ps1 script. Remember that with build servers the > > pre-requisites often need to be embedded in the project for things to work > > properly. > > > > Anyhow, let me know when you are in a good place with your branch to > > start slogging through getting the new build working. In the > > interests of full disclosure I'm working an event the last week and > > a half of April and will be completely out of pocket then. But I'm about > > otherwise. > > > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 10:04 AM Shad Storhaug > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Wyatt, > > > > > > > We will probably want to build out .nuspec files to get all the > > > > nuget > > > stuff right for these projects -- I don't think the generation > > > will work for us to get things quite right. > > > > > > Connie has set us up to use .json files instead of .nuspec files > > > to generate the NuGet packages (the new way instead of the old way). > > > The build script Build.ps1 does it all (it even has help > > > documentation), but it is missing an option to override versioning. > > > Ideally we would be able to override the version that is in the > > > .json file with an environment variable (which you can pass from > > > TeamCity), and be able to override that on the CLI for local > > > "one-off" builds. See the build > > instructions on #191: > > > https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/191 > > > > > > > Regarding the nuget key -- that plan works for me, the trick is > > > > I don't > > > have the key to add to myget. > > > > > > I don't know what order the infrastructure was setup in on your > > > end, but my thought was that if someone had previously pushed from > > > MyGet to NuGet the key is probably already configured there. But > > > yea, you would need access to MyGet to confirm. > > > > > > > I would love to start beating on that a bit but the .net core > > > > version > > > seems to want NUnit 3.5+ which needs to be added to the project to run. > > > > > > I will take a look at your pull request, but I think this is a > > > symptom of trying to run using the older tooling. The Build.ps1 > > > script already has the ability to test, and all of the tooling is > > > there to do it (I think - maybe I should do a fresh clone to be > > > sure). It does have some prerequisites, though (see #191). It > > > builds both the .NET Framework and .NET Core versions and packages > > > them into > NuGet. > > > > > > Per #191: Hopefully Lucene.Net.sln can be removed in the future > > > because the .NET Core projects compile for .NET 4.5.1 already. > > > > > > So I think the aim is to eventually eliminate those .csproj files > > > (and for that matter .nuspec files) and use strictly .json files > > > for project configuration going forward. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888) > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 5:00 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: API Work/Stabilization Update > > > > > > Shad -- the overall plan sounds good. We will probably want to > > > build out .nuspec files to get all the nuget stuff right for these > > > projects > > > -- I don't think the generation will work for us to get things > > > quite > > right. > > > > > > Regarding the nuget key -- that plan works for me, the trick is I > > > don't have the key to add to myget. Come to think of it I don't > > > think I have the proverbial keys to the myget page either but I > > > think Martin can help us out there. > > > > > > Buffers could be the issue on the tests -- I've long suspected > > > that or I/O causing the meltdown, I just haven't been able to reproduce. > > > I would love to start beating on that a bit but the .net core > > > version seems to want NUnit 3.5+ which needs to be added to the > > > project to run. If you get that added I can start beating on the > > > test problems a > > bit more. > > > > > > Thanks for all your hard work putting this together, let me know > > > how I can help you get it out the proverbial door. > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:34 AM Shad Storhaug > > > <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Wyatt, > > > > > > > > Thanks. Actually, I was thinking this should go in a few steps > > > > instead of > > > > one: > > > > > > > > 1. Merge #203. > > > > 2. Change the pre-release label to "beta2" and work out any > > > > issues to build/push to MyGet (might take a few tries) 3. Update > > > > the README and CONTRIBUTING pages 4. Push the package to NuGet > > > > > > > > I have always just used the control panel at MyGet to push > > > > upstream to NuGet, and it is capable of storing someone's key so > > > > the person who pushes it doesn't actually need it. > > > > > > > > As far as the tests burning down are concerned, I discovered > > > > that some of them write so much "verbose" data that they > > > > overflow NUnit's buffer and cause it to crash (sometimes this > > > > even causes Visual Studio to crash locally). I think I have > > > > found all of the tests in the Core that were causing this and > > > > hard-coded them to set verbose off (with the ability to manually > > > > override), but I noticed that there are still tests in > > > > Analysis.Common that can cause > it to crash. > > > > I haven't investigated if there is a setting in NUnit to > > > > increase the buffer size, which might be a better fix, but I > > > > could probably track down the rest of the tests that are causing > > > > this before the > > merge. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888) > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 8:14 PM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: API Work/Stabilization Update > > > > > > > > I'm about and happy to update when you are ready. > > > > > > > > I think the build should start working for 203 if you add the > > > > nunit-console nuget package. At least work in the sense of the > > > > build will start. I'm still chasing those build time bugbears I > > > > haven't been able to slay yet. > > > > > > > > As for getting to nuget.org -- who has the key? I've never had > > > > access to it so I'm not sure we can update what is out there. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 09:10 Shad Storhaug > > > > <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Wyatt, Prescott, Itamar, anybody? We've almost got all of the > > > > > tests passing on #203 and would like to merge to master and > > > > > release it with the new pre-release label "beta2". > > > > > > > > > > If there is nobody available to get the build running after > > > > > merging, could someone give me access to TeamCity to work on it? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888) > > > > > > > > > > From: Shad Storhaug > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 5:25 AM > > > > > To: '[email protected]' > > > > > Subject: API Work/Stabilization Update > > > > > > > > > > I am getting very close to getting #203 merged. I wouldn't go > > > > > so far as to say that the API is finished, but the most > > > > > significant of the breaking API changes are now behind us. > > > > > > > > > > BUILD/VERSIONING > > > > > > > > > > I just wanted to be sure there is someone available to help > > > > > get the build working after the merge. I think it would be > > > > > appropriate to change the pre-release label from "beta" to > > > > > "beta2" (without resetting the build number, since that is > actually what NuGet uses). > > > > > This would be primarily because of a major breaking API > > > > > change, but also to indicate another advancement toward release. > > > > > > > > > > We should probably also get this onto NuGet as soon as > > > > > possible to > > > > > (hopefully) make it easier to recruit help to stabilize and > > > > > create some integration packages for popular Microsoft frameworks. > > > > > > > > > > KNOWN ISSUES > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The QueryParser.Flexible custom localized message > > > functionality > > > > > is currently not implemented for .NET core, so those tests are > > > > > now > > > > failing. > > > > > > > > > > 2. The implementation of Lucene.Net.Expressions currently > reads > > > > data > > > > > from the configuration file. This is not how modern libraries > > > > > are supposed to be built - instead we want any configuration > > > > > to be pushed in from the application that uses Lucene.Net. > > > > > Reading from the configuration file directly means no > > > > > opportunity to use dependency injection. There is also a > > > > > namespace Support/Configuration that can and should be removed > > > > > after the implementation is refactored to be DI-friendly (see > > > > > http://blog.ploeh.dk/2014/05/19/di-friendly-framework/). I > > > > > haven't yet worked out how the implementation was done in .NET > > > > > - in Java, the defaults were read from an embedded resource > > > > > file and could be overridden by passing in a ClassLoader > > > > > (similar to .NET's Assembly > > > > class) - if anyone has any information on how the "auto generated" > > > > C# code was generated, please share. > > > > > > > > > > 3. The Collation functionality in Analysis.Common doesn't > work > > > with > > > > > icu-dotnet, and has been excluded from compilation using the > > > > > constant FEATURE_COLLATION. I am now convinced after reading > > > > > the docs that it would be better to port the similar > > > > > functionality from Analysis.ICU because it was designed to > > > > > work with icu4j and is therefore more likely to work with icu-dotnet. > > > > > > > > > > 4. The Highlighter PostingsHighlight and VectorHighlight > > > > > functionality relies on icu-dotnet, which doesn't have a close > > > > > match for the BreakIterator in the JRE, so there are likely > > > > > some big differences in the functionality. Several hacks were > > > > > put in to make the tests pass, but these are not likely to fix > > > > > all of the issues in the > > > > wild. > > > > > > > > > > 5. There are several namespaces in Lucene.Net.Core and > > > > > Lucene.Net.Codecs that have broken documentation comments. > > > > > > > > > > 6. There are some concurrency and performance issues (as > > pointed > > > > out > > > > > by Vincent Van Den Burghe): > > > > > http://git.net/ml/general/2017-02/msg00168.html > > > > > > > > > > 7. We have around 2 dozen tests that fail during > randomization > > > > > (averaging about 17 broken per run), and 8 tests that fail > > > > > all/most of the time. > > > > > > > > > > RESOLVED ISSUES (in addition to API refactoring) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Finished implementing the randomization of Codecs, > Culture, > > > Time > > > > > Zone, and InfoStream in the TestFramework. > > > > > > > > > > 2. Added factories for Codec, DocValuesFormat, and > > PostingsFormat > > > > so > > > > > custom implementations can be provided via dependency > > > > > injection instead of using the Java-ish NamedSPILoader class. > > > > > The name must now be provided by an attribute (or by class > > > > > naming > > > > > convention) rather than via constructor, so it can be read > > > > > without creating an instance of > > > > the class. > > > > > > > > > > 3. Fixed several of the codecs in Lucene.Net.Codecs that were > > > still > > > > > not functioning (and not being tested because of the > > > > > unfinished RandomCodec class and test mocks). > > > > > > > > > > 4. Reviewed all catch blocks in Lucene.Net.Core to ensure the > > > right > > > > > type of exceptions are being caught and the right type re-thrown. > > > > > > > > > > 5. Fixed culture-sensitive comparison and sort order issues > > when > > > > > using strings in Lucene.Net.Core and Lucene.Net.Codecs. > > > > > > > > > > 6. Merged similar functionality in Support into the same > class > > > and > > > > > deleted several unused Support classes. > > > > > > > > > > 7. Made the API CLS compliant, so it now works with all .NET > > > > > languages. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
