OK. Maybe I asked wrong question, Suppose I committed IsolatedStorageDirectory only to trunk. How would you merge this branch & trunk?
DIGY. -----Original Message----- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 12:28 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? Yes. But if there are commits to trunk before that happens it's a merge. -T On Jul 2, 2011 1:53 PM, "Digy" <digyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> > > > ------------------------------**--------------------------- >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >
