Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
On 2011-02-19, Digy wrote: I think there is a misunderstanding about the release. In Apache way, a release is a *signed* binary release(compiled version). Uhm no. Apache releases are OpenPGP signed bundles of source code (zip or tar.gz doesn't matter). Any binary distribution you create is just a convenience for your users. The thing that is considered the release is the source code. Lucene.Net.dll has no dependency to other binaries(unless you want to test or use compression) and they will not be included in the release. If the binary distributions contain third party stuff then it must come under a license that is OK to get redistributed by us. Given that most of us are not lawyers and even if we were we likely wouldn't agree in all cases, you can find many common licenses already evaluated by the ASF's legal team: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#faq NUnit is currently licensed under the zlib/libpng license if the Launchpad site is correct. This one is a Category-A license and it is OK for an ASF project to depend on and redistribute it. Stefan
Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
On 2011-02-19, Troy Howard wrote: Disclaimer: Troy's Personal Opinions (tm) which may be controversial, will be found below Regarding the idea of 'feature branches', I guess I should make it clear that I personally don't agree with this workflow in SVN. This is completely appropriate for Mercurial or Git, because they were designed for that. SVN however, was not, and branching becomes costly because it bloats the repo, causing updates or initial downloads to be much larger, and merging is confusing and difficult with SVN. Stefan's personal opinion: merging in svn isn't as bad as it gets painted but a DVCS certainly makes it look easier. Feature branches are a good idea for * experiments * controversial changes so that you could show where you wanted to go for better discussion * really big changes that take long to implement and many iterations to get right where you didn't want to disturb trunk In general I tend to avoid them, though. Also, a big part of this is that many people have the opinion that 'trunk' should be stable. I think this philosophy is incorrect. Instead, stable revisions should be tagged, and trunk should be viewed as unstable, possibly not building or functioning correctly. Commits should occur frequently, and be isolated to a very small scope per commit. +1 (except that I prefer trunk to build all the time). Stefan
RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
I agree with DIGY. Although why wait until after the official release? Scott -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since v2.0 and people have to compile the source by yourselves it has been good to support older versions of VS. But after having an offical release, we could update the trunk to support VS2010. Now for each change in trunk (for v2.9.3, 2.9.4 2.9.5) we have to update another repository also. DIGY -Original Message- From: pnas...@apache.org [mailto:pnas...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:11 PM To: lucene-net-comm...@lucene.apache.org Subject: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Author: pnasser Date: Fri Feb 18 20:10:54 2011 New Revision: 1072121 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1072121view=rev Log: (empty) Added: incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ - copied from r1069573, incubator/lucene.net/trunk/ This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc.
Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
+1 for only one trunk upgraded to VS2010 On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Lombard, Scott slomb...@kingindustries.com wrote: I agree with DIGY. Although why wait until after the official release? Scott -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since v2.0 and people have to compile the source by yourselves it has been good to support older versions of VS. But after having an offical release, we could update the trunk to support VS2010. Now for each change in trunk (for v2.9.3, 2.9.4 2.9.5) we have to update another repository also. DIGY -Original Message- From: pnas...@apache.org [mailto:pnas...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:11 PM To: lucene-net-comm...@lucene.apache.org Subject: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Author: pnasser Date: Fri Feb 18 20:10:54 2011 New Revision: 1072121 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1072121view=rev Log: (empty) Added: incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ - copied from r1069573, incubator/lucene.net/trunk/ This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc. -- --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda
RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
But I would prefer do the same thing on my own local copy and create a patch for trunk. Thanks, DIGY -Original Message- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 11:39 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Cc: Sergey Mirvoda Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ It's a common practice for developers to create a branch to work on a new feature, then merge that branch back into trunk later when the changes are complete, then delete the branch. The goal is to ensure that incremental commits, performed now against the branch instead of trunk, don't leave trunk in a incompatible, unstable or un-buildable state. Perhaps that's Prescott's intention with the new vs2010 branch? Thanks, Troy On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Sergey Mirvoda ser...@mirvoda.com wrote: +1 for only one trunk upgraded to VS2010 On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Lombard, Scott slomb...@kingindustries.com wrote: I agree with DIGY. Although why wait until after the official release? Scott -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since v2.0 and people have to compile the source by yourselves it has been good to support older versions of VS. But after having an offical release, we could update the trunk to support VS2010. Now for each change in trunk (for v2.9.3, 2.9.4 2.9.5) we have to update another repository also. DIGY -Original Message- From: pnas...@apache.org [mailto:pnas...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:11 PM To: lucene-net-comm...@lucene.apache.org Subject: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Author: pnasser Date: Fri Feb 18 20:10:54 2011 New Revision: 1072121 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1072121view=rev Log: (empty) Added: incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ - copied from r1069573, incubator/lucene.net/trunk/ This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc. -- --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda
Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
For folks who badly need to compile it, why not just add a batch file to build the project. It is one line: %windir%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\msbuild lucene.net.csproj /t:Clean;Rebuild /p:Configuration=Release On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Troy Howard thowar...@gmail.com wrote: It's a common practice for developers to create a branch to work on a new feature, then merge that branch back into trunk later when the changes are complete, then delete the branch. The goal is to ensure that incremental commits, performed now against the branch instead of trunk, don't leave trunk in a incompatible, unstable or un-buildable state. Perhaps that's Prescott's intention with the new vs2010 branch? Thanks, Troy On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Sergey Mirvoda ser...@mirvoda.com wrote: +1 for only one trunk upgraded to VS2010 On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Lombard, Scott slomb...@kingindustries.com wrote: I agree with DIGY. Although why wait until after the official release? Scott -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since v2.0 and people have to compile the source by yourselves it has been good to support older versions of VS. But after having an offical release, we could update the trunk to support VS2010. Now for each change in trunk (for v2.9.3, 2.9.4 2.9.5) we have to update another repository also. DIGY -Original Message- From: pnas...@apache.org [mailto:pnas...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:11 PM To: lucene-net-comm...@lucene.apache.org Subject: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Author: pnasser Date: Fri Feb 18 20:10:54 2011 New Revision: 1072121 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1072121view=rev Log: (empty) Added: incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ - copied from r1069573, incubator/lucene.net/trunk/ This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc. -- --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda
Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
Why with 2.0 and not with 4.0 targeting 2.0? On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Wyatt Barnett wyatt.barn...@gmail.comwrote: For folks who badly need to compile it, why not just add a batch file to build the project. It is one line: %windir%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\msbuild lucene.net.csproj /t:Clean;Rebuild /p:Configuration=Release On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Troy Howard thowar...@gmail.com wrote: It's a common practice for developers to create a branch to work on a new feature, then merge that branch back into trunk later when the changes are complete, then delete the branch. The goal is to ensure that incremental commits, performed now against the branch instead of trunk, don't leave trunk in a incompatible, unstable or un-buildable state. Perhaps that's Prescott's intention with the new vs2010 branch? Thanks, Troy On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Sergey Mirvoda ser...@mirvoda.com wrote: +1 for only one trunk upgraded to VS2010 On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Lombard, Scott slomb...@kingindustries.com wrote: I agree with DIGY. Although why wait until after the official release? Scott -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/ lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since v2.0 and people have to compile the source by yourselves it has been good to support older versions of VS. But after having an offical release, we could update the trunk to support VS2010. Now for each change in trunk (for v2.9.3, 2.9.4 2.9.5) we have to update another repository also. DIGY -Original Message- From: pnas...@apache.org [mailto:pnas...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:11 PM To: lucene-net-comm...@lucene.apache.org Subject: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Author: pnasser Date: Fri Feb 18 20:10:54 2011 New Revision: 1072121 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1072121view=rev Log: (empty) Added: incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ - copied from r1069573, incubator/lucene.net/trunk/ This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc. -- --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda -- --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda
RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
Although why wait until after the official release? Just for Lucene.Net users who doesn't use VS2010 and want to use the latest version. DIGY -Original Message- From: Lombard, Scott [mailto:slomb...@kingindustries.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 11:27 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ I agree with DIGY. Although why wait until after the official release? Scott -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since v2.0 and people have to compile the source by yourselves it has been good to support older versions of VS. But after having an offical release, we could update the trunk to support VS2010. Now for each change in trunk (for v2.9.3, 2.9.4 2.9.5) we have to update another repository also. DIGY -Original Message- From: pnas...@apache.org [mailto:pnas...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:11 PM To: lucene-net-comm...@lucene.apache.org Subject: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Author: pnasser Date: Fri Feb 18 20:10:54 2011 New Revision: 1072121 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1072121view=rev Log: (empty) Added: incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ - copied from r1069573, incubator/lucene.net/trunk/ This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc.
Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
That works, only if you're working alone, and don't mind not committing your changes until your work is complete. Many developers don't feel comfortable with that work flow. It's one of the main reasons Mercurial/Git/etc is so popular now. You can commit locally, then push to a central repo later. Thanks, Troy On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Digy digyd...@gmail.com wrote: But I would prefer do the same thing on my own local copy and create a patch for trunk. Thanks, DIGY -Original Message- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 11:39 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Cc: Sergey Mirvoda Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ It's a common practice for developers to create a branch to work on a new feature, then merge that branch back into trunk later when the changes are complete, then delete the branch. The goal is to ensure that incremental commits, performed now against the branch instead of trunk, don't leave trunk in a incompatible, unstable or un-buildable state. Perhaps that's Prescott's intention with the new vs2010 branch? Thanks, Troy On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Sergey Mirvoda ser...@mirvoda.com wrote: +1 for only one trunk upgraded to VS2010 On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Lombard, Scott slomb...@kingindustries.com wrote: I agree with DIGY. Although why wait until after the official release? Scott -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since v2.0 and people have to compile the source by yourselves it has been good to support older versions of VS. But after having an offical release, we could update the trunk to support VS2010. Now for each change in trunk (for v2.9.3, 2.9.4 2.9.5) we have to update another repository also. DIGY -Original Message- From: pnas...@apache.org [mailto:pnas...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:11 PM To: lucene-net-comm...@lucene.apache.org Subject: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Author: pnasser Date: Fri Feb 18 20:10:54 2011 New Revision: 1072121 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1072121view=rev Log: (empty) Added: incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ - copied from r1069573, incubator/lucene.net/trunk/ This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc. -- --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda
RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
Why not having a release targeting 2.0, 3.5 and 4.0, then updating the project to 4.0 DIGY -Original Message- From: Sergey Mirvoda [mailto:ser...@mirvoda.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 11:56 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Why with 2.0 and not with 4.0 targeting 2.0? On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Wyatt Barnett wyatt.barn...@gmail.comwrote: For folks who badly need to compile it, why not just add a batch file to build the project. It is one line: %windir%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\msbuild lucene.net.csproj /t:Clean;Rebuild /p:Configuration=Release On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Troy Howard thowar...@gmail.com wrote: It's a common practice for developers to create a branch to work on a new feature, then merge that branch back into trunk later when the changes are complete, then delete the branch. The goal is to ensure that incremental commits, performed now against the branch instead of trunk, don't leave trunk in a incompatible, unstable or un-buildable state. Perhaps that's Prescott's intention with the new vs2010 branch? Thanks, Troy On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Sergey Mirvoda ser...@mirvoda.com wrote: +1 for only one trunk upgraded to VS2010 On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Lombard, Scott slomb...@kingindustries.com wrote: I agree with DIGY. Although why wait until after the official release? Scott -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/ lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since v2.0 and people have to compile the source by yourselves it has been good to support older versions of VS. But after having an offical release, we could update the trunk to support VS2010. Now for each change in trunk (for v2.9.3, 2.9.4 2.9.5) we have to update another repository also. DIGY -Original Message- From: pnas...@apache.org [mailto:pnas...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:11 PM To: lucene-net-comm...@lucene.apache.org Subject: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Author: pnasser Date: Fri Feb 18 20:10:54 2011 New Revision: 1072121 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1072121view=rev Log: (empty) Added: incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ - copied from r1069573, incubator/lucene.net/trunk/ This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc. -- --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda -- --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda
Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
4.0 rules them all. You can release 2.0 3.5 and 4.0 versions with 4.0 multitargeting On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Digy digyd...@gmail.com wrote: Why not having a release targeting 2.0, 3.5 and 4.0, then updating the project to 4.0 DIGY -Original Message- From: Sergey Mirvoda [mailto:ser...@mirvoda.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 11:56 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Why with 2.0 and not with 4.0 targeting 2.0? On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Wyatt Barnett wyatt.barn...@gmail.comwrote: For folks who badly need to compile it, why not just add a batch file to build the project. It is one line: %windir%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\msbuild lucene.net.csproj /t:Clean;Rebuild /p:Configuration=Release On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Troy Howard thowar...@gmail.com wrote: It's a common practice for developers to create a branch to work on a new feature, then merge that branch back into trunk later when the changes are complete, then delete the branch. The goal is to ensure that incremental commits, performed now against the branch instead of trunk, don't leave trunk in a incompatible, unstable or un-buildable state. Perhaps that's Prescott's intention with the new vs2010 branch? Thanks, Troy On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Sergey Mirvoda ser...@mirvoda.com wrote: +1 for only one trunk upgraded to VS2010 On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Lombard, Scott slomb...@kingindustries.com wrote: I agree with DIGY. Although why wait until after the official release? Scott -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/ lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since v2.0 and people have to compile the source by yourselves it has been good to support older versions of VS. But after having an offical release, we could update the trunk to support VS2010. Now for each change in trunk (for v2.9.3, 2.9.4 2.9.5) we have to update another repository also. DIGY -Original Message- From: pnas...@apache.org [mailto:pnas...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:11 PM To: lucene-net-comm...@lucene.apache.org Subject: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/ lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Author: pnasser Date: Fri Feb 18 20:10:54 2011 New Revision: 1072121 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1072121view=rev Log: (empty) Added: incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ - copied from r1069573, incubator/lucene.net/trunk/ This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc. -- --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda -- --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda -- --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda
Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
Good point. Main reason I used that is I could copy it out of the batch file I was using which was meant to be friendly to the VS2005/2.0 project . .. On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Sergey Mirvoda ser...@mirvoda.com wrote: 4.0 rules them all. You can release 2.0 3.5 and 4.0 versions with 4.0 multitargeting On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Digy digyd...@gmail.com wrote: Why not having a release targeting 2.0, 3.5 and 4.0, then updating the project to 4.0 DIGY -Original Message- From: Sergey Mirvoda [mailto:ser...@mirvoda.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 11:56 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Why with 2.0 and not with 4.0 targeting 2.0? On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Wyatt Barnett wyatt.barn...@gmail.comwrote: For folks who badly need to compile it, why not just add a batch file to build the project. It is one line: %windir%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\msbuild lucene.net.csproj /t:Clean;Rebuild /p:Configuration=Release On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Troy Howard thowar...@gmail.com wrote: It's a common practice for developers to create a branch to work on a new feature, then merge that branch back into trunk later when the changes are complete, then delete the branch. The goal is to ensure that incremental commits, performed now against the branch instead of trunk, don't leave trunk in a incompatible, unstable or un-buildable state. Perhaps that's Prescott's intention with the new vs2010 branch? Thanks, Troy On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Sergey Mirvoda ser...@mirvoda.com wrote: +1 for only one trunk upgraded to VS2010 On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Lombard, Scott slomb...@kingindustries.com wrote: I agree with DIGY. Although why wait until after the official release? Scott -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/ lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since v2.0 and people have to compile the source by yourselves it has been good to support older versions of VS. But after having an offical release, we could update the trunk to support VS2010. Now for each change in trunk (for v2.9.3, 2.9.4 2.9.5) we have to update another repository also. DIGY -Original Message- From: pnas...@apache.org [mailto:pnas...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:11 PM To: lucene-net-comm...@lucene.apache.org Subject: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/ lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Author: pnasser Date: Fri Feb 18 20:10:54 2011 New Revision: 1072121 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1072121view=rev Log: (empty) Added: incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ - copied from r1069573, incubator/lucene.net/trunk/ This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc. -- --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda -- --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda -- --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda
Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
Disclaimer: Troy's Personal Opinions (tm) which may be controversial, will be found below Regarding the idea of 'feature branches', I guess I should make it clear that I personally don't agree with this workflow in SVN. This is completely appropriate for Mercurial or Git, because they were designed for that. SVN however, was not, and branching becomes costly because it bloats the repo, causing updates or initial downloads to be much larger, and merging is confusing and difficult with SVN. Also, a big part of this is that many people have the opinion that 'trunk' should be stable. I think this philosophy is incorrect. Instead, stable revisions should be tagged, and trunk should be viewed as unstable, possibly not building or functioning correctly. Commits should occur frequently, and be isolated to a very small scope per commit. When an end user wants to get a stable build, then they can look to the tags directory to find the version they want, and work from that. Branches should be reserved for changes that are made to those tagged revisions. I also think that each project should have it's own repository, instead of bundling many into a single repo. This allows for better version tracking. SVN external can be used to bring complex composites of projects together into a single resulting application. This part of SVN is often overlooked as well, and we lump everything into one huge repository. I wish we had Mercurial here at Apache, because I honestly feel it's a MUCH better system because it allows these kinds of workflows. SVN doesn't really do that well. So, unpleasant as it may be, the strategy I described above works best within the SVN system. When in Rome... Thanks, Troy On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.com wrote: Perhaps that's Prescott's intention with the new vs2010 branch? Yes that's the intention. I started to look at what Wyatt did https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-377. I think feel that it works well as designed. Question: Wyatt has included the nunit.dll's I know we had a conversation before about this. But I think being able to pull down everything, open a single solution which has test, contrib, src, as well as the required dependancies would be a huge boon to getting people to work on this stuff. Every change I need to make for 2.9.2-2.9.5 requires me to touch the tests. it just makes sense from my perspective to have this all in the same solution ready to roll. Is this something people are open too having in the source control, or something I should keep to my local? Also, I don't recall the legal stuff behind including nunit. Obviously a release would just be the src rolled up and packaged. From: thowar...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:38:47 -0800 Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org CC: ser...@mirvoda.com It's a common practice for developers to create a branch to work on a new feature, then merge that branch back into trunk later when the changes are complete, then delete the branch. The goal is to ensure that incremental commits, performed now against the branch instead of trunk, don't leave trunk in a incompatible, unstable or un-buildable state. Perhaps that's Prescott's intention with the new vs2010 branch? Thanks, Troy On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Sergey Mirvoda wrote: +1 for only one trunk upgraded to VS2010 On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Lombard, Scott wrote: I agree with DIGY. Although why wait until after the official release? Scott -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since v2.0 and people have to compile the source by yourselves it has been good to support older versions of VS. But after having an offical release, we could update the trunk to support VS2010. Now for each change in trunk (for v2.9.3, 2.9.4 2.9.5) we have to update another repository also. DIGY -Original Message- From: pnas...@apache.org [mailto:pnas...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:11 PM To: lucene-net-comm...@lucene.apache.org Subject: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Author: pnasser Date: Fri Feb 18 20:10:54 2011 New Revision: 1072121 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1072121view=rev Log: (empty) Added: incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ - copied from r1069573, incubator/lucene.net/trunk/ This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential
Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
using svn externals makes it harder on people who would use tools like git-svn for version control on their local box. On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Troy Howard thowar...@gmail.com wrote: Disclaimer: Troy's Personal Opinions (tm) which may be controversial, will be found below Regarding the idea of 'feature branches', I guess I should make it clear that I personally don't agree with this workflow in SVN. This is completely appropriate for Mercurial or Git, because they were designed for that. SVN however, was not, and branching becomes costly because it bloats the repo, causing updates or initial downloads to be much larger, and merging is confusing and difficult with SVN. Also, a big part of this is that many people have the opinion that 'trunk' should be stable. I think this philosophy is incorrect. Instead, stable revisions should be tagged, and trunk should be viewed as unstable, possibly not building or functioning correctly. Commits should occur frequently, and be isolated to a very small scope per commit. When an end user wants to get a stable build, then they can look to the tags directory to find the version they want, and work from that. Branches should be reserved for changes that are made to those tagged revisions. I also think that each project should have it's own repository, instead of bundling many into a single repo. This allows for better version tracking. SVN external can be used to bring complex composites of projects together into a single resulting application. This part of SVN is often overlooked as well, and we lump everything into one huge repository. I wish we had Mercurial here at Apache, because I honestly feel it's a MUCH better system because it allows these kinds of workflows. SVN doesn't really do that well. So, unpleasant as it may be, the strategy I described above works best within the SVN system. When in Rome... Thanks, Troy On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.com wrote: Perhaps that's Prescott's intention with the new vs2010 branch? Yes that's the intention. I started to look at what Wyatt did https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-377. I think feel that it works well as designed. Question: Wyatt has included the nunit.dll's I know we had a conversation before about this. But I think being able to pull down everything, open a single solution which has test, contrib, src, as well as the required dependancies would be a huge boon to getting people to work on this stuff. Every change I need to make for 2.9.2-2.9.5 requires me to touch the tests. it just makes sense from my perspective to have this all in the same solution ready to roll. Is this something people are open too having in the source control, or something I should keep to my local? Also, I don't recall the legal stuff behind including nunit. Obviously a release would just be the src rolled up and packaged. From: thowar...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:38:47 -0800 Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/ lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org CC: ser...@mirvoda.com It's a common practice for developers to create a branch to work on a new feature, then merge that branch back into trunk later when the changes are complete, then delete the branch. The goal is to ensure that incremental commits, performed now against the branch instead of trunk, don't leave trunk in a incompatible, unstable or un-buildable state. Perhaps that's Prescott's intention with the new vs2010 branch? Thanks, Troy On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Sergey Mirvoda wrote: +1 for only one trunk upgraded to VS2010 On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Lombard, Scott wrote: I agree with DIGY. Although why wait until after the official release? Scott -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/ lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release since v2.0 and people have to compile the source by yourselves it has been good to support older versions of VS. But after having an offical release, we could update the trunk to support VS2010. Now for each change in trunk (for v2.9.3, 2.9.4 2.9.5) we have to update another repository also. DIGY -Original Message- From: pnas...@apache.org [mailto:pnas...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:11 PM To: lucene-net-comm...@lucene.apache.org Subject: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/ lucene.net/branches/vs2010/ Author: pnasser Date: Fri Feb 18 20:10:54 2011 New Revision: 1072121 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1072121view=rev
