I think CLS compatibility, in terms of types, is less important than naming. CLS compliance all while keeping the index format seems like a pretty big challenge for us to do at this point. I had worked *very little* on CLS compliance, it was mostly fixing TopDocs and some other small name changes. I had also started working on implementing IDisposable properly, and got a good start on that. I've committed the work I have done on those issues, so if you do want to do one of them feel free to assign it to yourself, if you'd like. There's a lot of issues, though for 3.0.3 now, that would be nice to have worked on, as well.
Thanks, Christopher On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > We should definitely take some time and clean the code up. With the way the > voting is going in general, it'll be a week for me to beg and plead for the 3 > IPMC votes we need to release 2.9.4g - so no rush.. Someone is working on the > CLS issue correct? I want to take another stab at that, but I don't want to > overlap too much. I was thinking of fixing the bit shifting crap I ran into > last time.. ~P > > Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:30:34 -0800 >> From: currens.ch...@gmail.com >> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 3.0.3 >> >> The source that this port was done from was the java release package. >> If you go to the mirrors: >> http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/lucene/java/ you'll see that they >> have a 3.0.3 folder with a downloadable source zip. There are >> additional thoughts I wrote down while working on it here: >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/branches/Lucene.Net.3.0.3/trunk/src/core/ChangeNotes.txt, >> but I really need to go through it again and even see if its up to >> date. >> >> 3.0.3's entirety has already been ported to the trunk, except for >> maybe the 7 files listed here: >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lucene.net/branches/Lucene.Net.3.0.3/trunk/src/core/FileDiffs.txt. >> Contrib has *largely* been ported but is also missing a few >> libraries. There are few unit tests that need to be written for new >> support classes, I think. A lot of code cleanup can be done as well. >> Sorry about the format of this email, kinda just going off the top of >> my head. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Christopher >> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Michael Herndon >> <mhern...@wickedsoftware.net> wrote: >> > Do we have a standard of copy or tag of Java's version source that we're >> > doing a compare against? I only see the 3_1 and above in the tags. >> > >> > I could attempt to do something similar I did with core and version 4 and >> > use beyond compare between 2.9.4 and 3.0.3 and make a list of files that >> > were touched and script out wiki links. Or I could try to generate of >> > beyond compare's diff reports and see how that stacks up and post to the >> > above link. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Prescott Nasser >> > <geobmx...@hotmail.com>wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I've updated the confluence page to hopefully give us some direction: >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Lucene.Net+3.0.3I'd >> >> think it's just easier if as you take down a Java Lucene Issue, you >> >> create a JIRA issue for Lucene.Net and associate it with 3.0.3, rather >> >> than >> >> me making a ton of issues. ~P >
