Ah, I did overlook that. I imagine that the move from 3.0.3 to 3.6 will realistically take a while, so if we can't get spatial stuff out before then, would it take until 3.6 to be able to release new functionality into the spatial contrib project? Along those lines, I propose that we move 3.0.3 into a new branch instead of just tagging the release and merging in 3.6. That way, during the time it takes to port 3.6, we can still do any critical bug fixes and features like these and release new versions. At least then, people won't be waiting for months for bug fixes.
If we did that, then it also might not be critical to get the spatial stuff out with this release, since we could get out a new release in a few weeks with updated spatial libraries...not that I'm against waiting for it now. It was just a suggestion on how we can move forward with the project. Thoughts either way on this? On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>wrote: > I agree > > What about the spatial stuff? you guys want to wait for it? > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Christopher Currens < > currens.ch...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > I think that while it would be nice to get it done, it's a fairly large > > effort, and we might be better off with doing a release. The tests are > > massively changed between 3.0.3 and 3.6, so I think a lot of it will get > > cleaned up anyway during the port. Also, a little while back, I did > clean > > up a lot of the test code to use Assert.Throws and to remove unnecessary > > variables, though that might have only been in catch statements. Either > > way, I think we just might be ready as it is. > > > > I am eager to start working on porting 3.6. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Christopher > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com > > >wrote: > > > > > I still have plenty to go on, but on a second thought we could do that > > work > > > just the same when we work towards 3.6, so I won't hold you off anymore > > > > > > Up to Chris - he wanted to do some tests cleanup > > > > > > Also, I'll be updating the Spatial contrib during the next week or so > > with > > > polygon support. I think we should hold off the release so we can > provide > > > that as well, but I suggest we will take a vote on it, don't let me > hold > > > you off. > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Just wanted to check in - where do we feel like we stand? What is > left > > to > > > > do - is there anything I can help with specifically? I'll have some > > spare > > > > cycles this weekend. I want to really make a push to get this ready > to > > > roll > > > > and not let it languish > > > > > > > > ~P > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > > Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:38:10 +0300 > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3 > > > > > From: ita...@code972.com > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and > coordinate > > > > > further later > > > > > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" < > > > currens.ch...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I've got resharper and can help with that if you'd like to > > coordinate > > > > it. > > > > > > I can take a one or some of the contrib projects or part of the > > main > > > > > > library, or *shudder* the any of the test libraries. The code has > > > > needed > > > > > > come cleaning up for a while and some of the clean up work is an > > > > > > optimization some levels, so I'm definitely okay with spending > some > > > > time > > > > > > doing that. I'm okay with waiting longer as long as something is > > > > getting > > > > > > done. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Christopher > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko < > > > > ita...@code972.com > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with > ReSharper > > > and > > > > > > trying > > > > > > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields > > readonly, > > > > > > removing > > > > > > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files > > > left. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with > some > > > > recent > > > > > > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may > take > > a > > > > bit > > > > > > more > > > > > > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for > > it). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Christopher Currens < > > > > > > > currens.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Itamar, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where do we stand on the clean up now? Is there anything in > > > > particular > > > > > > > > that you're doing that you'd like help with? I have some free > > > time > > > > > > today > > > > > > > > and am eager to get this version released. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Christopher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Prescott Nasser < > > > > > > geobmx...@hotmail.com > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alright, I'll hold off a bit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300 > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3 > > > > > > > > > > From: ita...@code972.com > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and > > > would > > > > > > want > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption > > issue > > > > we > > > > > > > > raised. > > > > > > > > > > I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly > do > > > all > > > > > > that, > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > I'll keep you posted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser < > > > > > > > > geobmx...@hotmail.com > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with the > > cls > > > > > > issues > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll with a > > > > release. > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > > > could please take some time to run all the test as well > > as > > > > > > whatever > > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > > tests they might run. We've had some issues with tests > > only > > > > > > > happening > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > some systems so I want to make sure we have those bases > > > > covered. > > > > > > > > Unless > > > > > > > > > > > there is anything else that should be done, I'll leave > > > every > > > > one > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > week to > > > > > > > > > > > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk and > > > cut a > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700 > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3 > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.ch...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can set a different build target, but I can't set > the > > > > actual > > > > > > > > > framework > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations. On > > top > > > > of > > > > > > > that, > > > > > > > > > 3.5 > > > > > > > > > > > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done > > > > automatically > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > .NET 4 > > > > > > > > > > > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it automatically?). > I > > > did > > > > > > kinda > > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of > 4.0 > > in > > > > Debug > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > Release > > > > > > > > > > > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5 > > > > > > > configurations, > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by hand > > > since > > > > > > > visual > > > > > > > > > studio > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't allow you to set different framework versions > > per > > > > > > > > > configuration, > > > > > > > > > > > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with > > > > references, > > > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > > both > > > > > > > > > > > > frameworks were being referenced. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser < > > > > > > > > > geobmx...@hotmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean doesn't work at the project > level? I > > > > > > created a > > > > > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > > > > > build target NET35 and then we had Debug and > Release > > > > still, > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > seemed to > > > > > > > > > > > > > work for me. But I feel like I'm missing something > in > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > explaination. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good work though! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: currens.ch...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
