Troy, What do you mean by "merging"? 2.9.4g is a superset of 2.9.4 and has * bux fixes like LUCENENET-414 * new features like LUCENENET-429, MemoryMappedDirectory(although not used yet) , PartiallyTrustedAppDomain tests * improvements like LUCENENET-427, LUCENENET-418, Refactoring of SupportClass * API changes like - StopAnalyzer(List<string> stopWords) - Query.ExtractTerms(ICollection<string>) - TopDocs.TotalHits, TopDocs.ScoreDocs * readibily-changes like replacing some abstract methods with Func<>, while(XXX.MoveNext())s with foreachs etc.
Is it something like creating a 2.9.4 tag and replacing trunk with 2.9.4g? DIGY -----Original Message----- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:36 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? DIGY - Re: Why do I wait.. That's mostly because I intend to make some deep changes, which would make merging the 2.9.4g branch back to trunk difficult. So, it's easier to merge those changes first. Also, I won't have enough time to make my changes until a little way in the future, but probably do have the time to put together another release, so I'll do that first because it fits with my work/life schedule. Thanks, Troy On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Digy <digyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > Michael, > You interpret the report as "whoever commits code wins"? But when I look at > it, I see "a lof of talk, no work". .Net community is not interested in > contributing. > I really don't understand what hinders people to work on Lucene.Net. As I > did for 2.9.4g, grab the code, do whatever you want on it and submit back. > If it doesn't fit to the project's direction it can still find a place in > contrib or in branch. All of the approaches can live side by side happily in > the Lucene.Net repository. > > Troy, > I also don't understand why do you wait for 2.9.4g? It is a *branch* and > has nothing to do with the trunk. It need not be an offical release and can > live in branch as a PoC. > > > As a result, I got bored to listen to "this should be done that way". What > I want to see is "I did it that way, should we continue with this". > > DIGY > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:47 PM > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? > > Michael, > > I agree with everything you said. My point in saying "whoever commits code > wins" was to illustrate the reality of how and why the project has the > current form. > > Building consensus is difficult. It is an essential first step before we > can > do something like make a list of bit-sized pieces of work that others can > work on. > > This is why my real message of "Let's find a way to accommodate both" is so > important. It allows us to build consensus, so that we can settle on a > direction and structure our work. > > Until we accomplish that, it really is "whoever commits code wins", and > that > is an unhealthy and unmaintainable way to operate. > > From a technical perspective, your statements about the unit tests are > completely accurate. They really need a LOT of reworking. That's the very > first step before making any significant changes. Part of the problem is > that the tests themselves are not well written. The other part is that the > Lucene object model was not designed for testability, and it makes writing > good tests more difficult, and certain tests might not be possible. It will > be difficult to write good unit tests without re-structuring. The biggest > issue is the use of abstract classes with base behaviour vs interfaces or > fully abstracted classes. Makes mocking tough. This is the direction I was > going when I started the Lucere project. I'd like to start in on that work > after the 2.9.4g release. > > Thanks, > Troy > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Michael Herndon < > mhern...@wickedsoftware.net> wrote: > > > I'd say that is all the more reasons that we need to work smarter and not > > harder. I'd also say thats a good reason to make sure we build consensus > > rather than just saying whoever commits code wins. > > > > And its a damn good reason to focus on the effort of growing the number > of > > contributors and lowing the barrier to submitting patches, breaking > things > > down into pieces that people would feel confident to work on without > > being overwhelmed by the complexity of Lucene.Net. > > > > There is a pretty big gap between Lucene 2.9.x to Lucene 4.0 and the > > internals and index formats are significantly different including nixing > > the > > current vint file format and using byte[] array slices for Terms instead > of > > char[]. > > > > So while porting 1 to 1 while require less knowledge or thought, its most > > likely going to require more hours of work. And Its definitely not going > to > > guarantee the stability of the code or that its great code. > > > > I'd have to say that its not as stable as most would believe at the > moment. > > > > Most of the tests avoid anything that remotely looks like it knows about > > the > > DRY principle and there is a static constructor in the core test case > that > > throws an exception if it doesn't find an environment variable "TEMP" > which > > will fail 90% of the tests and nunit will be unable to give you a clear > > reason why. Just to name a few issues I came across working towards > > getting > > Lucene.Net into CI. I haven't even started really digging in under the > > covers of the code yet. > > > > So my suggestion is to chew on this a bit more and build consensus, avoid > > fracturing people into sides. Be open to reservations and concerns that > > others have and continue to address them. > > > > - Michael > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Digy <digyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Although there are a lot of people using Lucene.Net, this is our > > > contribution report for the past 5 years. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ConfigureReport.jspa?atl_token=A5KQ-2Q > > > > > > > > > AV-T4JA-FDED|3204f7e696067a386144705075c074e991db2a2b|lin&versionId=-1&issue > > > > > > > > > Status=all&selectedProjectId=12310290&reportKey=com.sourcelabs.jira.plugin.r > > > eport.contributions%3Acontributionreport&Next=Next > > > > > > > > > DIGY > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ayende Rahien [mailto:aye...@ayende.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 8:16 PM > > > To: Rory Plaire; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port > needed? > > > > > > As someone from the nhibernate project > > > We stopped following hibernate a while ago, and haven't regretted it > > > We have mire features, less bugs and better code base > > > > > > Sent from my Windows Phone From: Rory Plaire > > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 19:58 > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port > needed? > > > I don't want to drag this out much longer, but I am curious with people > > who > > > hold the "line-by-line" sentiment - are you NHibernate users? > > > > > > -r > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Noel Lysaght <lysag...@hotmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Can I just plug in my bit and say I agree 100% with what Moray has > > > outlined > > > > below. > > > > > > > > If we move away from the line by line port then over time we'll loose > > out > > > > on the momentum that is Lucene and the improvements that they make. > > > > It is only if the Lucene.NET community has expertise in search, a > > deep > > > > knowledge of the project and the community can guarantee that the > > > knowledge > > > > will survive members coming and going should such a consideration be > > > give. > > > > > > > > When Lucene.NET has stood on it's feet for a number of years after it > > has > > > > moved out of Apache incubation should consideration be given to > > > abandoning > > > a > > > > line by line port. > > > > By all means extend and wrap the libraries in .NET equivalents and > .NET > > > > goodness like LINQ (we do this internally in our company at the > > moment); > > > but > > > > leave the core of the project on a line by line port. > > > > > > > > Just my tu-pence worth. > > > > > > > > Kind Regards > > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Moray McConnachie > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:25 AM > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org< > > > lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org> > > > > Cc: > > > lucene-net-dev@incubator.**apache.org< > > lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org> > > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port > > needed? > > > > > > > > I don't think I'm as hard core on this as Neal, but remember: the > > > > history of the Lucene.NET project is that all the intellectual work, > > all > > > > the understanding of search, all the new features come from the > Lucene > > > > Java folks. Theirs is an immensely respected project, and I trust > them > > > > to add new features that will be well-tested and well-researched, and > > to > > > > have a decent roadmap which I can trust they will execute on. > > > > > > > > Now I know there's been an influx of capable developers to Lucene.NET > > > > who are ready, willing and (I'm going to assume) able to add a lot > more > > > > value in a generic .NET implementation as they change it. But it'll > > take > > > > a while before I trust a .NET dedicated framework which is > > significantly > > > > diverged from Java in the way I do the line-by-line version. And at > > what > > > > stage is it not just not a line-by-line port, but not a port at all? > > > > > > > > At the same time, I recognise that if this project is going to > > continue, > > > > and attract good developers, it has to change in this direction. > > > > > > > > So that said, I can see why a line-by-line port might not be > > > > sustainable. And most people don't need it. But most of us using > Lucene > > > > in production systems do need a system that we can trust and rely on. > > So > > > > let me chime in with someone else's plea, to keep the general > structure > > > > close to Lucene, to keep the same general objects and inheritance > > > > set-up, and to keep the same method names, even if you add other > > methods > > > > and classes to provide additional functionality. ABSOLUTELY the same > > > > file formats. End users benefit a lot from a high degree of > similarity, > > > > with good documentation and help being available from the Java > > > > community. > > > > > > > > Yours, > > > > Moray > > > > ------------------------------**------- > > > > Moray McConnachie > > > > Director of IT +44 1865 261 600 > > > > Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Granroth, Neal V. > > > [mailto:neal.granroth@**thermofisher.com< > neal.granr...@thermofisher.com> > > > > ] > > > > Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47 > > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org< > > > lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org> > > > > Cc: > > > lucene-net-dev@incubator.**apache.org< > > lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org> > > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port > > needed? > > > > > > > > This is has been discussed many times. > > > > Lucene.NET is not valid, the code cannot be trusted, if it is not a > > > > line-by-line port. It ceases to be Lucene. > > > > > > > > - Neal > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Scott Lombard > > > [mailto:lombardenator@gmail.**com<lombardena...@gmail.com> > > > > ] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org < > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > >; > > > > lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org < > lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > > Subject: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After the large community response about moving the code base from > .Net > > > > 2.0 to Net 4.0 I am trying to figure out what is the need for a > > > > line-by-line port. Starting with Digy's excellent work on the > > > > conversion to generics a priority of the 2.9.4g release is the 2 > > > > packages would not be interchangeable. So faster turnaround from a > > java > > > > release won't matter to non line-by-line users they will have to wait > > > > until the updates are made to the non line-by-line code base. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My question is there really a user base for the line-by-line port? > > > > Anyone have a comment? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------**--------------------------- > > > > Disclaimer > > > > > > > > This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. > If > > > > this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or > > disclose > > > > them, and contact the sender as soon as possible. > > > > > > > > Oxford Analytica Ltd > > > > Registered in England: No. 1196703 > > > > 5 Alfred Street, Oxford > > > > United Kingdom, OX1 4EH > > > > ------------------------------**--------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
