My thinking is just a separate ticket for each one. This makes the work
easier to manage and gives a better sense about how much work is left as
well as makes it easier to prioritize independent issues. We could link all
the sub-issues to a single task / feature / whatever (that is, if JIRA has
that capability).
-r
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Michael Herndon <
mhern...@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
> I think whatever makes sense to do.
>
> possibly create one jira for now with a running list that can be modified
> and possibly as people pull from that list, cross things off or create a
> separate ticket that links back to to the main one.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Rory Plaire <codekai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > @Michael -
> >
> > Should that list be in JIRA? It would be easier to manage, I think...
> >
> > If yes, I'll happily do it.
> >
> > -r
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Michael Herndon <
> > mhern...@wickedsoftware.net
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > * need to document what the build script does. whut grammerz?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Michael Herndon <
> > > mhern...@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > @Rory, @All,
> > > >
> > > > The only tickets I currently have for those is LUCENE-419, LUCENE-418
> > > >
> > > > 418, I should be able to push into the 2.9.4g branch tonight. 419
> is
> > a
> > > > long term goal and not as important as getting the tests fixed, of
> have
> > > the
> > > > tests broken down into what is actually a unit test, functional test,
> > > perf
> > > > or long running test. I can get into more why it needs to be done.
> > > >
> > > > I'll also need to make document the what build script currently does
> on
> > > the
> > > > wiki & and make a few notes about testing, like using the
> RAMDirectory,
> > > > etc.
> > > >
> > > > Things that need to get done or even be discussed.
> > > > * There needs to be a running list of things to do/not to do with
> > > testing.
> > > > I don't know if this goes in a jira or do we keep a running list on
> the
> > > wiki
> > > > or site for people to pick up and help with.
> > > > * Tests need to run on mono and not Fail (there is a good deal of
> > > failing
> > > > tests on mono, mostly due to the temp directory have the C:\ in the
> > > path).
> > > > * Assert.Throw<ExceptionType>() needs to be used instead of
> Try/Catch
> > > > Assert.Fail. **
> > > > * File & Path combines to the temp directory need helper methods,
> > > > * e,g, having this in a hundred places is bad new
> > > >
> > >
> >
> System.IO.FileInfo(System.IO.Path.Combine(Support.AppSettings.Get("tempDir",
> > > > ""), "testIndex"));
> > > > * We should still be testing deprecated methods, but we need to use
> > > #pragma
> > > > warning disable/enable 0618 for testing those. otherwise compiler
> > > warnings
> > > > are too numerous to be anywhere near helpful.
> > > > * We should only be using deprecated methods in places where they
> are
> > > > being explicitly tested, other tests that need that functionality in
> > > order
> > > > to validate those tests should be re factored to use methods that are
> > not
> > > > deprecated.
> > > > * Identify code that could be abstracted into test utility classes.
> > > > * Infrastructure Validation tests need to be made, anything that
> seems
> > > > like infrastructure. e.g. does the temp directory exist, does the
> > > folders
> > > > that the tests use inside the temp directory exist, can we read/write
> > to
> > > > those folders. (if a ton of tests fail due to the file system, we
> > should
> > > be
> > > > able to point out that it was due to permissions or missing folders,
> > > files,
> > > > etc).
> > > > * Identify what classes need an interface, abstract class or
> inherited
> > > in
> > > > order to create testing mocks. (once those classes are created, they
> > > should
> > > > be documented in the wiki).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ** Asset.Throws needs to replace stuff like the following. We should
> > also
> > > > be checking the messages for exceptions and make sure they make sense
> > and
> > > > can help users fix isses if the exceptions are aimed at the library
> > > users.
> > > > try
> > > > {
> > > > d = DateTools.StringToDate("97"); // no date
> > > > Assert.Fail();
> > > > }
> > > > catch (System.FormatException e)
> > > > {
> > > > /* expected exception */
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Rory Plaire <codekai...@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> So, veering towards action - are there concrete tasks written up
> > > anywhere
> > > >> for the unit tests? If a poor schlep like me wanted to dig in and
> > start
> > > to
> > > >> improve them, where would I get the understanding of what is good
> and
> > > what
> > > >> needs help?
> > > >>
> > > >> -r
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Digy <digyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I can not say I like this approach, but till we find an automated
> > > >> way(with
> > > >> > good results), it seems to be the only way we can use.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > DIGY
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com]
> > > >> > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:43 AM
> > > >> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > >> > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port
> > > needed?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Scott -
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The idea of the automated port is still worth doing. Perhaps it
> > makes
> > > >> sense
> > > >> > for someone more passionate about the line-by-line idea to do that
> > > work?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I would say, focus on what makes sense to you. Being productive,
> > > >> regardless
> > > >> > of the specific direction, is what will be most valuable. Once you
> > > >> start,
> > > >> > others will join and momentum will build. That is how these things
> > > work.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I like DIGY's approach too, but the problem with it is that it is
> a
> > > >> > never-ending manual task. The theory behind the automated port is
> > that
> > > >> it
> > > >> > may reduce the manual work. It is complicated, but once it's built
> > and
> > > >> > works, it will save a lot of future development hours. If it's
> built
> > > in
> > > >> a
> > > >> > sufficiently general manner, it could be useful for other project
> > like
> > > >> > Lucene.Net that want to automate a port from Java to C#.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It might make sense for that to be a separate project from
> > Lucene.Net
> > > >> > though.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -T
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Scott Lombard <
> > > lombardena...@gmail.com
> > > >> > >wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Ok I think I asked the wrong question. I am trying to figure
> out
> > > >> where
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > put my time. I was thinking about working on the automated
> > porting
> > > >> > system,
> > > >> > > but when I saw the response to the .NET 4.0 discussions I
> started
> > to
> > > >> > > question if that is the right direction. The community seemed
> to
> > be
> > > >> more
> > > >> > > interested in the .NET features.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > The complexity of the automated tool is going to become very
> high
> > > and
> > > >> > will
> > > >> > > probably end up with a line-for-line style port. So I keep
> asking
> > > my
> > > >> > self
> > > >> > > is the automated tool worth it. I don't think it is.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I like the method has been Digy is using for porting the code.
> So
> > I
> > > >> > guess
> > > >> > > for me the real question is Digy where did you see 2.9.4g going
> > next
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > what do you need help on?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Scott
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > > > From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com]
> > > >> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 4:20 PM
> > > >> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > >> > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave
> port
> > > >> > needed?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Michael,
> > > >> > > > You interpret the report as "whoever commits code wins"? But
> > when
> > > I
> > > >> > look
> > > >> > > > at it, I see "a lof of talk, no work". .Net community is not
> > > >> interested
> > > >> > > in
> > > >> > > > contributing.
> > > >> > > > I really don't understand what hinders people to work on
> > > Lucene.Net.
> > > >> As
> > > >> > I
> > > >> > > > did for 2.9.4g, grab the code, do whatever you want on it and
> > > submit
> > > >> > > back.
> > > >> > > > If it doesn't fit to the project's direction it can still find
> a
> > > >> place
> > > >> > in
> > > >> > > > contrib or in branch. All of the approaches can live side by
> > side
> > > >> > happily
> > > >> > > > in the Lucene.Net repository.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Troy,
> > > >> > > > I also don't understand why do you wait for 2.9.4g? It is a
> > > *branch*
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > > has nothing to do with the trunk. It need not be an offical
> > > release
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > > can live in branch as a PoC.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > As a result, I got bored to listen to "this should be done
> that
> > > >> way".
> > > >> > > What
> > > >> > > > I want to see is "I did it that way, should we continue with
> > > this".
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > DIGY
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > > > From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com]
> > > >> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:47 PM
> > > >> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > >> > > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave
> port
> > > >> > needed?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Michael,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I agree with everything you said. My point in saying "whoever
> > > >> commits
> > > >> > > code
> > > >> > > > wins" was to illustrate the reality of how and why the project
> > has
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > current form.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Building consensus is difficult. It is an essential first step
> > > >> before
> > > >> > we
> > > >> > > > can
> > > >> > > > do something like make a list of bit-sized pieces of work that
> > > >> others
> > > >> > can
> > > >> > > > work on.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > This is why my real message of "Let's find a way to
> accommodate
> > > >> both"
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > > so
> > > >> > > > important. It allows us to build consensus, so that we can
> > settle
> > > on
> > > >> a
> > > >> > > > direction and structure our work.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Until we accomplish that, it really is "whoever commits code
> > > wins",
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > > that
> > > >> > > > is an unhealthy and unmaintainable way to operate.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > From a technical perspective, your statements about the unit
> > tests
> > > >> are
> > > >> > > > completely accurate. They really need a LOT of reworking.
> That's
> > > the
> > > >> > very
> > > >> > > > first step before making any significant changes. Part of the
> > > >> problem
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > > that the tests themselves are not well written. The other part
> > is
> > > >> that
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > Lucene object model was not designed for testability, and it
> > makes
> > > >> > > writing
> > > >> > > > good tests more difficult, and certain tests might not be
> > > possible.
> > > >> It
> > > >> > > > will
> > > >> > > > be difficult to write good unit tests without re-structuring.
> > The
> > > >> > biggest
> > > >> > > > issue is the use of abstract classes with base behaviour vs
> > > >> interfaces
> > > >> > or
> > > >> > > > fully abstracted classes. Makes mocking tough. This is the
> > > direction
> > > >> I
> > > >> > > was
> > > >> > > > going when I started the Lucere project. I'd like to start in
> on
> > > >> that
> > > >> > > work
> > > >> > > > after the 2.9.4g release.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > Troy
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Michael Herndon <
> > > >> > > > mhern...@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > I'd say that is all the more reasons that we need to work
> > > smarter
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > > not
> > > >> > > > > harder. I'd also say thats a good reason to make sure we
> build
> > > >> > > consensus
> > > >> > > > > rather than just saying whoever commits code wins.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > And its a damn good reason to focus on the effort of growing
> > the
> > > >> > number
> > > >> > > > of
> > > >> > > > > contributors and lowing the barrier to submitting patches,
> > > >> breaking
> > > >> > > > things
> > > >> > > > > down into pieces that people would feel confident to work on
> > > >> without
> > > >> > > > > being overwhelmed by the complexity of Lucene.Net.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > There is a pretty big gap between Lucene 2.9.x to Lucene 4.0
> > and
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > internals and index formats are significantly different
> > > including
> > > >> > > nixing
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > current vint file format and using byte[] array slices for
> > Terms
> > > >> > > instead
> > > >> > > > of
> > > >> > > > > char[].
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > So while porting 1 to 1 while require less knowledge or
> > thought,
> > > >> its
> > > >> > > > most
> > > >> > > > > likely going to require more hours of work. And Its
> definitely
> > > not
> > > >> > > going
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > guarantee the stability of the code or that its great code.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I'd have to say that its not as stable as most would believe
> > at
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > moment.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Most of the tests avoid anything that remotely looks like it
> > > knows
> > > >> > > about
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > DRY principle and there is a static constructor in the core
> > test
> > > >> case
> > > >> > > > that
> > > >> > > > > throws an exception if it doesn't find an environment
> variable
> > > >> "TEMP"
> > > >> > > > which
> > > >> > > > > will fail 90% of the tests and nunit will be unable to give
> > you
> > > a
> > > >> > clear
> > > >> > > > > reason why. Just to name a few issues I came across working
> > > >> towards
> > > >> > > > > getting
> > > >> > > > > Lucene.Net into CI. I haven't even started really digging
> in
> > > >> under
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > covers of the code yet.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > So my suggestion is to chew on this a bit more and build
> > > >> consensus,
> > > >> > > > avoid
> > > >> > > > > fracturing people into sides. Be open to reservations and
> > > >> concerns
> > > >> > > that
> > > >> > > > > others have and continue to address them.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > - Michael
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Digy <digyd...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Although there are a lot of people using Lucene.Net, this
> is
> > > our
> > > >> > > > > > contribution report for the past 5 years.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ConfigureReport.jspa?atl_token=A5KQ-
> > > >> > > > 2Q
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >>
> AV-T4JA-FDED|3204f7e696067a386144705075c074e991db2a2b|lin&versionId=-
> > > >> > > > 1&issue
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> Status=all&selectedProjectId=12310290&reportKey=com.sourcelabs.jira.plugin
> > > >> > > > .r
> > > >> > > > > > eport.contributions%3Acontributionreport&Next=Next
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > DIGY
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > > > > > From: Ayende Rahien [mailto:aye...@ayende.com]
> > > >> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 8:16 PM
> > > >> > > > > > To: Rory Plaire; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line
> Jave
> > > port
> > > >> > > > needed?
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > As someone from the nhibernate project
> > > >> > > > > > We stopped following hibernate a while ago, and haven't
> > > >> regretted
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > > > > > We have mire features, less bugs and better code base
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Sent from my Windows Phone From: Rory Plaire
> > > >> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 19:58
> > > >> > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line
> Jave
> > > port
> > > >> > > > needed?
> > > >> > > > > > I don't want to drag this out much longer, but I am
> curious
> > > with
> > > >> > > > people
> > > >> > > > > who
> > > >> > > > > > hold the "line-by-line" sentiment - are you NHibernate
> > users?
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > -r
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Noel Lysaght <
> > > >> > lysag...@hotmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Can I just plug in my bit and say I agree 100% with what
> > > Moray
> > > >> > has
> > > >> > > > > > outlined
> > > >> > > > > > > below.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > If we move away from the line by line port then over
> time
> > > >> we'll
> > > >> > > > loose
> > > >> > > > > out
> > > >> > > > > > > on the momentum that is Lucene and the improvements that
> > > they
> > > >> > make.
> > > >> > > > > > > It is only if the Lucene.NET community has expertise in
> > > >> search,
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > > > > deep
> > > >> > > > > > > knowledge of the project and the community can guarantee
> > > that
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > knowledge
> > > >> > > > > > > will survive members coming and going should such a
> > > >> consideration
> > > >> > > be
> > > >> > > > > > give.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > When Lucene.NET has stood on it's feet for a number of
> > years
> > > >> > after
> > > >> > > > it
> > > >> > > > > has
> > > >> > > > > > > moved out of Apache incubation should consideration be
> > given
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > > abandoning
> > > >> > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > > line by line port.
> > > >> > > > > > > By all means extend and wrap the libraries in .NET
> > > equivalents
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > > .NET
> > > >> > > > > > > goodness like LINQ (we do this internally in our company
> > at
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > moment);
> > > >> > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > > leave the core of the project on a line by line port.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Just my tu-pence worth.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Kind Regards
> > > >> > > > > > > Noel
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Moray McConnachie
> > > >> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:25 AM
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > >> > > > > > lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org>
> > > >> > > > > > > Cc:
> > > >> > > > > > lucene-net-dev@incubator.**apache.org<
> > > >> > > > > lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org>
> > > >> > > > > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line
> > Jave
> > > >> port
> > > >> > > > > needed?
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > I don't think I'm as hard core on this as Neal, but
> > > remember:
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > > history of the Lucene.NET project is that all the
> > > intellectual
> > > >> > > work,
> > > >> > > > > all
> > > >> > > > > > > the understanding of search, all the new features come
> > from
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > Lucene
> > > >> > > > > > > Java folks. Theirs is an immensely respected project,
> and
> > I
> > > >> trust
> > > >> > > > them
> > > >> > > > > > > to add new features that will be well-tested and
> > > >> well-researched,
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > have a decent roadmap which I can trust they will
> execute
> > > on.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Now I know there's been an influx of capable developers
> to
> > > >> > > > Lucene.NET
> > > >> > > > > > > who are ready, willing and (I'm going to assume) able to
> > add
> > > a
> > > >> > lot
> > > >> > > > more
> > > >> > > > > > > value in a generic .NET implementation as they change
> it.
> > > But
> > > >> > it'll
> > > >> > > > > take
> > > >> > > > > > > a while before I trust a .NET dedicated framework which
> is
> > > >> > > > > significantly
> > > >> > > > > > > diverged from Java in the way I do the line-by-line
> > version.
> > > >> And
> > > >> > at
> > > >> > > > > what
> > > >> > > > > > > stage is it not just not a line-by-line port, but not a
> > port
> > > >> at
> > > >> > > all?
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > At the same time, I recognise that if this project is
> > going
> > > to
> > > >> > > > > continue,
> > > >> > > > > > > and attract good developers, it has to change in this
> > > >> direction.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > So that said, I can see why a line-by-line port might
> not
> > be
> > > >> > > > > > > sustainable. And most people don't need it. But most of
> us
> > > >> using
> > > >> > > > Lucene
> > > >> > > > > > > in production systems do need a system that we can trust
> > and
> > > >> rely
> > > >> > > > on.
> > > >> > > > > So
> > > >> > > > > > > let me chime in with someone else's plea, to keep the
> > > general
> > > >> > > > structure
> > > >> > > > > > > close to Lucene, to keep the same general objects and
> > > >> inheritance
> > > >> > > > > > > set-up, and to keep the same method names, even if you
> add
> > > >> other
> > > >> > > > > methods
> > > >> > > > > > > and classes to provide additional functionality.
> > ABSOLUTELY
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > same
> > > >> > > > > > > file formats. End users benefit a lot from a high degree
> > of
> > > >> > > > similarity,
> > > >> > > > > > > with good documentation and help being available from
> the
> > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > > community.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Yours,
> > > >> > > > > > > Moray
> > > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------**-------
> > > >> > > > > > > Moray McConnachie
> > > >> > > > > > > Director of IT +44 1865 261 600
> > > >> > > > > > > Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > > > > > > From: Granroth, Neal V.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > [mailto:neal.granroth@**thermofisher.com<
> > > >> > neal.granr...@thermofisher.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > ]
> > > >> > > > > > > Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47
> > > >> > > > > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > >> > > > > > lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org>
> > > >> > > > > > > Cc:
> > > >> > > > > > lucene-net-dev@incubator.**apache.org<
> > > >> > > > > lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org>
> > > >> > > > > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line
> > Jave
> > > >> port
> > > >> > > > > needed?
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > This is has been discussed many times.
> > > >> > > > > > > Lucene.NET is not valid, the code cannot be trusted, if
> it
> > > is
> > > >> not
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > > > > > > line-by-line port. It ceases to be Lucene.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > - Neal
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > > > > > > From: Scott Lombard
> > > >> > > > > > [mailto:lombardenator@gmail.**com<lombardena...@gmail.com
> >
> > > >> > > > > > > ]
> > > >> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
> > > >> > > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org <
> > > >> > > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > >;
> > > >> > > > > > > lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org <lucene-net-
> > > >> > > > u...@lucene.apache.org
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Subject: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave
> > port
> > > >> > > needed?
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > After the large community response about moving the code
> > > base
> > > >> > from
> > > >> > > > .Net
> > > >> > > > > > > 2.0 to Net 4.0 I am trying to figure out what is the
> need
> > > for
> > > >> a
> > > >> > > > > > > line-by-line port. Starting with Digy's excellent work
> on
> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > conversion to generics a priority of the 2.9.4g release
> is
> > > the
> > > >> 2
> > > >> > > > > > > packages would not be interchangeable. So faster
> > turnaround
> > > >> from
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > > > > java
> > > >> > > > > > > release won't matter to non line-by-line users they will
> > > have
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > > wait
> > > >> > > > > > > until the updates are made to the non line-by-line code
> > > base.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > My question is there really a user base for the
> > line-by-line
> > > >> > port?
> > > >> > > > > > > Anyone have a comment?
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Scott
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > ------------------------------**---------------------------
> > > >> > > > > > > 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
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > ------------------------------**---------------------------
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
