I've got it working, compiling and all test passing...The only caveat is that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target. It doesn't really work on a project level, so you'd have to create two separate projects, one for .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I wrote a small tool that creates copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions to work against the 3.5 framework. Anyone have experience with multi-targeting like this?
Thanks, Christopher On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>wrote: > > Have at it. > > ---------------------------------------- > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700 > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3 > > From: currens.ch...@gmail.com > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a little bit in that branch, > and > > see what kind of progress I can make, since I have some time right now. > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com > >wrote: > > > > > > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked into the 3.5 branch, there is > more > > > work to be done we could potentially move it to 3.0.3, but I put it > into > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to having this released, and > adding > > > those changes would add a fair amount of change so close to the > release. I > > > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm mostly just doing > > > administrative work for the next two weeks though - I have a few > things I > > > have to take care of > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700 > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3 > > > > From: currens.ch...@gmail.com > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We had a contributer, Luc > Vanlerberghe, > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting these last few difficult bugs > out > > > of > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or more of the failing tests from > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as LUCENE-493, with the culture > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no longer get any culture > issues, > > > > since the tests that are marked as culture sensitive are now all run > in > > > all > > > > installed cultures on the machine. > > > > > > > > I think CLS compliance is still important and should be handled. What > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott had done some work on this > and > > > I > > > > also know this was requested by several in the community. I would > love to > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be able to pick up where > anyone > > > had > > > > left off or take part of it, if they don't have time to work on it. > In > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it is pretty much complete. I > > > think > > > > I've looked several times at it to confirm most/all methods have been > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final check and close it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Christopher > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon Svensson <si...@devhost.se> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The tests that failed when using culture=sv-se seems fixed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> 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< > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> CLS Compliance > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446 > > > <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< > > > 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< > > > 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< > > > 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 > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
