Yes, we should merge 3.0.3 into the trunk - thanks for the follow up on 3.0.3
Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Christopher Currens Sent: 2/12/2012 6:56 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 3.0.3 I was sick for a while, but I finally had time to check and see if the java issues below were already ported or not. I can confirm that all of those changes, if applicable, were already included in the 3.0.3 branch. When I say if application, I mean issues like this one: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2653, haven't been ported because there's no real equivalent in .NET. This one in particular deals with a BreakIterator, which I deals with culture sensitive text boundaries. There is not a .NET equivalent for that, as far as I know. So, from what I can tell, it looks like the core assembly for 3.0.3 should include all bug fixes and such from java. Contrib is largely there, as well, but there are still a few libraries that haven't/can't easily be ported. On this subject, it looks like 2.9.4 was successfully voted for release. Does this mean we are soon merging 3.0.3 into trunk? There are only a few issues regarding .NET-ification that I think are blocking a 3.0.3 release. Thanks, Christopher On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Christopher Currens < currens.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2653, 2055, 2776, 2732, 2688, 2616, 2524, 2398, 2284, 2278, 2277, and 2249 > are all on JIRA that aren't on that list in the CHANGES.txt file. It looks > like that file in SVN has some issues that aren't listen in JIRA. Anyway, > it's possible that those issues listed here have already been ported as > part of that changeset. I'm basing that on the fact that the last time > these bugs were updated was Dec 1st 2010, which was before the code was > released. However, we should still check to make sure. > > Thanks, > Christopher > > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Christopher Currens < > currens.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I can only guarantee that these 31 bugs here (in the 3.0.3 version): >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_3_0_3/CHANGES.txt >> are >> part of the code. I mean, it's possible that other's are, but we'd really >> need to check the others listed there to be sure that they are also >> included. However, that's only a difference of 9 bugs, so I think we're >> very close to a 3.0.3 release, depending on how many issues we want to get >> done that related to changing the API. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> Christopher >> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Prescott Nasser >> <geobmx...@hotmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> So, Chris if you did this as a direct port of the java version ( >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_3_0_3/), Does >>> that mean that all of the LUCENE JIRA issues ( >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=project+%3D+LUCENE+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%223.0.3%22+AND+status+%3D+Closed+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC&mode=hide) >>> are part of this code already? That would make 3.0.3 well on it's way to >>> release... ~P >>> > From: bode...@apache.org >>> > To: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org >>> > Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:35:25 +0100 >>> > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 3.0.3 >>> > >>> > On 2012-01-25, Michael Herndon 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. >>> > >>> > Likely because the svn location has changed in between. I think it >>> must >>> > be <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_3_0_3/> >>> > >>> > Stefan >>> >>> >> >> >
