Three issues left that I see:
Fixing the build output, I did some work, but I'm good on this, we can move the rest of work to 3.6 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456 CLS Compliance https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446. Are we ok with this as for now? There are still a good number of issues where, some we can't really fix (sbyte and volatile are out of scope imo). In a similiar vein, our own code uses some obsolete methods and we have a lot of variable declared but never used warnings (mentally, I treat most warning as an error) GetX/SetX - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470. I think much of this has been removed, there are probably some pieces that left (and we have a difference of opinion in the group as well). I really think the only outstanding issue is the CLS compliance one, the rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS compliance we have to ask if we've done enough for that so far, or if more is needed. I personally would like to see us make any API changes now, with the 3.0.3 release, but if we are comfortable with it, lets roll. What are your thoughts? ~P ---------------------------------------- > From: thowar...@gmail.com > Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37 -0700 > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3 > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > Assuming we're talking about the packaging/filesystem structure in the > releases, the structure is a little of both (ours vs Apache's)... > Basically, I went through most of the Apache projects to see how they > packaged releases and developed a structure that was very similar but > encompassed everything we needed. So, it's informed by the organically > emergent structures that ASF uses. > > -T > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I have no idea why I thought we were using Nant. > > I think it's just "our release structure". I figured a little out this > > weekend, splitting the XML and .dll files into separate directories. The > > documentation you have on the wiki was actually pretty helpful. > > Whatever more you can add would be great > > > > ~P > > > >> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21 -0400 > >> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3 > >> From: mhern...@wickedsoftware.net > >> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Prescott Nasser > >> <geobmx...@hotmail.com>wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- Task 470, a non-serious one, is listed only because it's mostly done > >> > and > >> > > just need a few loose ends tied up. I'll hopefully have time to take > >> > > care > >> > > of that this weekend. > >> > > >> > > >> > How many GetX/SetX are left? I did a quick search for 'public * Get*()' > >> > Most of them looked to be actual methods - perhaps a few to replace > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is important, but there's no way we can > >> > > get > >> > > this done quickly. The current state of this issue is that all of the > >> > > names of public members are now compliant. There are a few things that > >> > > aren't, the use of sbyte (particularly those related to the FieldCache) > >> > and > >> > > some conflicts with *protected or internal* fields (some with public > >> > > members). Opinions on this one will be appreciated the most. My opinion > >> > > is that we should draw a line on the amount of CLS compliance to have > >> > > in > >> > > this release, and push the rest into 3.5. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I count roughly 53 CLS compliant issues. the sbyte stuff will run into > >> > trouble when you do bit shifting (I ran into this issue when trying to do > >> > this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if we can't get rid of the easier stuff > >> > (internal/protected stuff). I would not try getting rid of sbyte or > >> > volatile for thile release. It's going to take some serious consideration > >> > to get rid of those > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- Improvement 337 - Are we going to add this code (not present in > >> > > java) > >> > to > >> > > the core library? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I'd skip it and re-evaluate the community desire for this in 3.5. > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- Improvement 456 - This is related to builds being output in Apache's > >> > > release format. Do we want to do this for this release? > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > I looked into this last weekend - I'm terrible with Nant, so I didn't get > >> > anywhere. It would be nice to have, but I don't think I'll figure it out. > >> > If Michael has some time to maybe make the adjustment, he knows these > >> > scripts best. If not I'm going to look into it, but I don't call this a > >> > show stopper - either we have it or we don't when the rest is done. > >> > > >> > >> With some Flo Rida and expresso shots, anything is possible. > >> > >> Did we switch to Nant? > >> > >> I saw the jira ticket for this. Is there an official apache release > >> structure or this just our* apache release structure that we are using? > >> Can I take the latest release and use that to model the structure you guys > >> want? > >> > >> @Prescott declarative xml build scripts are a pita in general. only reason > >> we're using this over powershell or a scripting language is that mono > >> supports it and most .NET devs have it already installed. > >> > >> I'll spend some more time documenting it so that others can work on it and > >> even refactor it. > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ~P > >
