Hi David/Russell/secretary@a.o: Could one of you forward on the confirmation of this CLA to either me ( thow...@apache.org) or Prescott (pnas...@apache.org)?
Thanks, Troy On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:57 PM, David Wan <t-de...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > The ICLA and CCLA have both been acknowledged and filed. I will try to > look at the code and figure out where the bug is. > > Thanks, > Defu > > -----Original Message----- > From: itamar.synhers...@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhers...@gmail.com] On > Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko > Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 8:55 PM > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org > Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0 > > Ok, I started work on your branch. My goal at this point is to verify all > the core code and all core tests have been ported, and then to make sure > they are all running and passing. > > Until we get confirmation about the CLAs you can track my work here: > https://github.com/synhershko/lucene.net/tree/Lucene.Net_4.8.0 > > There are several core tests which are failing due to some bug with > SortedSetDocValuesWriter. The Debug.Assert statement in > SortedSetDocValuesWriter:203 is triggered. Can you have a look see if you > can figure that one out? it seems like some code there wasn't ported in > full. > > Thanks > > -- > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> > Freelance Developer & Consultant Author of RavenDB in Action < > http://manning.com/synhershko/> > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Russell Trupiano <t-rus...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > > Hello Itamar, > > > > As the primary contributor to the changes in this port I can answer > > some of your questions. > > > > The port I have been working on has been built basically from the > > ground up. I have borrowed some classes and details from the 3.0.3 > > release and also from Paul Irwin's work on his branch. As of right now > > There are 1840 of the ~2100 unit tests from the Java release passing. > > My work has been entirely on the core portion and I have not touched > > the contrib files at all. There are a few problem files I have had > > trouble getting to build so as of now they are just ignored in Visual > > Studio (These are test files though). > > > > I'm sure there will be pieces from the source files that can be > > improved, as I have had a limited amount of time to get this working > > for my internship. Feel free to reach out to me with any further > questions. > > > > Russell > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: itamar.synhers...@gmail.com [mailto:itamar.synhers...@gmail.com] > > On Behalf Of Itamar Syn-Hershko > > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 5:00 PM > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org > > Cc: u...@lucenenet.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0 > > > > Hi David, and welcome. > > > > Thanks for your efforts and willingness to contribute. As Stefan > > mentioned there probably will be some paperwork involved before we can > > do anything with this, but I don't suspect there will be real problem. > > > > I haven't reviewed your branch yet, so forgive me if answers to some > > of the items below are evident by looking at it. > > > > To better understand the current status of your work and plan our next > > steps with it, can you please describe in short what you did there, > > and whether there are parts you know you haven't worked on? (contrib > > packages for example? or less commonly used parts of the core?). Any > > info you could give us would be helpful - especially if there are > > known gaps in the implementation. > > > > The way I see this merged in is after the CLA is signed we continue > > working on a branch until we are satisfied with it, and then we can > > test, cleanup, create nugets and stage a release. > > > > I think serious discussion needs to be made between us committers with > > regards to the 4.3 branch Paul Irwin has worked on recently. Some of > > his work I was able to review and can confirm is good and stable, plus > > I think they are already using it in production. Michael and I chipped > > in a bit there as well to rearrange some stuff. The biggest > > disadvantage of the 4.3 branch is it's very outdated already (Java > > Lucene is currently at 4.9), and it has almost no tests to verify it. > > I believe the question is mainly - do we want to jump from 3.0 to 4.8 or > do we want to have a 4.3 version as well? > > > > There's also the issue of doubling the efforts - basically most of > > your work has already been done and probably tested to some extent by > > Paul unless you were aware of his efforts and built on them. Whether > > we will try and release 4.3 or not, I think we should verify 4.3 and > > 4.8 in tandem to make sure we don't lose any of the work done. > > > > I'll be more than happy to jump in on this and help wherever necessary. > > I've been planning on doing this for a while now on the 4.3 branch but > > being a freelancer I always find myself pulled in to other (paid) > projects. > > Having more people to collaborate with will definitely help focus on > this. > > That is to say I'm happy to be the coordinator of this merge. > > > > Let's continue this technical discussion on the dev mailing list > > please, it belongs there. > > > > -- > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> > > Freelance Developer & Consultant Author of RavenDB in Action < > > http://manning.com/synhershko/> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:37 AM, David Wan <t-de...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the feedback. We will be submitting a pull request at the > > > end of this week since we will be making more changes for the next > > > few > > days. > > > Just to clarify, we are working on this project on company time and > > > we have approval to release it for open source with the Apache license. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > David > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Moray McConnachie [mailto:mmcco...@oxford-analytica.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:30 AM > > > To: u...@lucenenet.apache.org > > > Subject: RE: Lucene.net 4.8.0 > > > > > > Any reason this is on the user list not the dev list? Seems like a > > > dev discussion to me now... > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bode...@apache.org] > > > Sent: 23 July 2014 16:02 > > > To: u...@lucenenet.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.net 4.8.0 > > > > > > On 2014-07-23, michael herndon wrote: > > > > > > >> But do we require tickets for other pull requests? There is > > > >> nothing that would force us to do so. > > > > > > > Force? No. But, given our track record, a github pull request > > > > without a ticket may get missed for months on end. Committers get > > > > notified when a jira ticket is created or an e-mail is sent on the > > list. > > > > > > We can get emails for pull requests as well - I even think we > > > already do but may be wrong. > > > > > > Anyway, I'm far removed from questioning the desire to have JIRA > > > tickets, I'm fine with it. Just wanted to be sure you know it is > > > not something the ASF burdens us with. > > > > > > >> I agree having a JIRA ticket for this case is a good idea so we > > > >> can reuse it if we feel we need to perform an IP-clearance > > > >> process.[1] > > > > > > > As for the size... its going to be a decent sized diff. Would > > > > they need to fill out the icla? > > > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt > > > > > > If this was a project undertaken by a bunch of people during their > > > spare time then a few ICLAs are in order, if it was created on > > > company time of a shared employer we'd better ask for a software > > > grant by the > > employer. > > > > > > Stefan > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > Disclaimer > > > > > > This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. > > > If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or > > > disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible. > > > > > > Oxford Analytica Ltd > > > Registered in England: No. 1196703 > > > 5 Alfred Street, Oxford > > > United Kingdom, OX1 4EH > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > >
