What's the status on the failing tests we had? On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > 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 > > > >
