What do you mean doesn't work at the project level? I created a different build
target NET35 and then we had Debug and Release still, that seemed to work for
me. But I feel like I'm missing something in your explaination. Good work
though!
> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0700
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: currens.ch...@gmail.com
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> I've got it working, compiling and all test passing...The only caveat is
> that I'm not sure the best way to multi-target. It doesn't really work on
> a project level, so you'd have to create two separate projects, one for
> .NET 4 and the other for 3.5. To aid me, I wrote a small tool that creates
> copies of all of the 4.0 projects and solutions to work against the 3.5
> framework. Anyone have experience with multi-targeting like this?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Christopher
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > Have at it.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:20:06 -0700
> > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > From: currens.ch...@gmail.com
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > > If it's alright with you, I'll work on it a little bit in that branch,
> > and
> > > see what kind of progress I can make, since I have some time right now.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I made some progress on 480 - checked into the 3.5 branch, there is
> > more
> > > > work to be done we could potentially move it to 3.0.3, but I put it
> > into
> > > > 3.5 because I felt that we were closer to having this released, and
> > adding
> > > > those changes would add a fair amount of change so close to the
> > release. I
> > > > can add it back to the schedule, though I'm mostly just doing
> > > > administrative work for the next two weeks though - I have a few
> > things I
> > > > have to take care of
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------
> > > > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:21:42 -0700
> > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > From: currens.ch...@gmail.com
> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > The tests should all be fine now. We had a contributer, Luc
> > Vanlerberghe,
> > > > > who did a LOT of work for us, getting these last few difficult bugs
> > out
> > > > of
> > > > > the way. He's responsible for half or more of the failing tests from
> > > > > LUCENENET-484 getting fixed, as well as LUCENE-493, with the culture
> > > > > sensitivity. Also, I think we should no longer get any culture
> > issues,
> > > > > since the tests that are marked as culture sensitive are now all run
> > in
> > > > all
> > > > > installed cultures on the machine.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think CLS compliance is still important and should be handled. What
> > > > > about LUCENENET-480? I know that Prescott had done some work on this
> > and
> > > > I
> > > > > also know this was requested by several in the community. I would
> > love to
> > > > > see that make it into 3.0.3, and would be able to pick up where
> > anyone
> > > > had
> > > > > left off or take part of it, if they don't have time to work on it.
> > In
> > > > > regards to LUCENENET-446, I agree that it is pretty much complete. I
> > > > think
> > > > > I've looked several times at it to confirm most/all methods have been
> > > > > converted, so this week I'll do a final check and close it out.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Christopher
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Simon Svensson <si...@devhost.se>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The tests that failed when using culture=sv-se seems fixed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2012-07-08 20:44, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> What's the status on the failing tests we had?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > geobmx...@hotmail.com
> > > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Three issues left that I see:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Fixing the build output, I did some work, but I'm good on this,
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > >>> move the rest of work to 3.6
> > > > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-456<
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-456>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> CLS Compliance
> > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-446
> > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-446>.
> > > > > >>> Are
> > > > > >>> we ok with this as for now? There are still a good number of
> > issues
> > > > > >>> where,
> > > > > >>> some we can't really fix (sbyte and volatile are out of scope
> > imo).
> > > > In a
> > > > > >>> similiar vein, our own code uses some obsolete methods and we
> > have a
> > > > lot
> > > > > >>> of
> > > > > >>> variable declared but never used warnings (mentally, I treat most
> > > > warning
> > > > > >>> as an error)
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> GetX/SetX -
> > https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/LUCENENET-470<
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-470>.
> > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > >>> much of this has been removed, there are probably some pieces
> > that
> > > > left
> > > > > >>> (and we have a difference of opinion in the group as well).
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I really think the only outstanding issue is the CLS compliance
> > one,
> > > > the
> > > > > >>> rest can be moved to 3.6. With CLS compliance we have to ask if
> > we've
> > > > > >>> done
> > > > > >>> enough for that so far, or if more is needed. I personally would
> > > > like to
> > > > > >>> see us make any API changes now, with the 3.0.3 release, but if
> > we
> > > > are
> > > > > >>> comfortable with it, lets roll.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> What are your thoughts?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> ~P
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> ------------------------------**----------
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> From: thowar...@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:34:37 -0700
> > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > >>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Assuming we're talking about the packaging/filesystem structure
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>> releases, the structure is a little of both (ours vs
> > Apache's)...
> > > > > >>>> Basically, I went through most of the Apache projects to see how
> > > > they
> > > > > >>>> packaged releases and developed a structure that was very
> > similar
> > > > but
> > > > > >>>> encompassed everything we needed. So, it's informed by the
> > > > organically
> > > > > >>>> emergent structures that ASF uses.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> -T
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > geobmx...@hotmail.com
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> I have no idea why I thought we were using Nant.
> > > > > >>>>> I think it's just "our release structure". I figured a little
> > out
> > > > this
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>> weekend, splitting the XML and .dll files into separate
> > > > directories. The
> > > > > >>> documentation you have on the wiki was actually pretty helpful.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Whatever more you can add would be great
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> ~P
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:04:21 -0400
> > > > > >>>>>> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > > > > >>>>>> From: mhern...@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > >>>>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> geobmx...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 470, a non-serious one, is listed only because it's
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> mostly done
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> just need a few loose ends tied up. I'll hopefully have
> > time to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> take care
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> of that this weekend.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> How many GetX/SetX are left? I did a quick search for
> > 'public *
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Get*()'
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Most of them looked to be actual methods - perhaps a few to
> > replace
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> -- Task 446 (CLS Compliance), is important, but there's no
> > way we
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> can get
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> this done quickly. The current state of this issue is that all
> > of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> names of public members are now compliant. There are a few
> > things
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> aren't, the use of sbyte (particularly those related to the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> FieldCache)
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> some conflicts with *protected or internal* fields (some
> > with
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> public
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> members). Opinions on this one will be appreciated the most. My
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> opinion
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> is that we should draw a line on the amount of CLS compliance to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> have in
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> this release, and push the rest into 3.5.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> I count roughly 53 CLS compliant issues. the sbyte stuff
> > will run
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> into
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> trouble when you do bit shifting (I ran into this issue when
> > trying
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> to do
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> this for 2.9.4. I'd like to see if we can't get rid of the
> > easier
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> stuff
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> (internal/protected stuff). I would not try getting rid of
> > sbyte or
> > > > > >>>>>>> volatile for thile release. It's going to take some serious
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> consideration
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> to get rid of those
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 337 - Are we going to add this code (not
> > present
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> in java)
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> the core library?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> I'd skip it and re-evaluate the community desire for this in
> > 3.5.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> -- Improvement 456 - This is related to builds being output
> > in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Apache's
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> release format. Do we want to do this for this release?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> I looked into this last weekend - I'm terrible with Nant, so
> > I
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> didn't get
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> anywhere. It would be nice to have, but I don't think I'll
> > figure
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> it out.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> If Michael has some time to maybe make the adjustment, he knows
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> these
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> scripts best. If not I'm going to look into it, but I don't call
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> this a
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> show stopper - either we have it or we don't when the rest is
> > done.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> With some Flo Rida and expresso shots, anything is possible.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Did we switch to Nant?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I saw the jira ticket for this. Is there an official apache
> > > > release
> > > > > >>>>>> structure or this just our* apache release structure that we
> > are
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> using?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Can I take the latest release and use that to model the
> > structure
> > > > you
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> guys
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> want?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> @Prescott declarative xml build scripts are a pita in general.
> > > > only
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> reason
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> we're using this over powershell or a scripting language is that
> > > > mono
> > > > > >>>>>> supports it and most .NET devs have it already installed.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I'll spend some more time documenting it so that others can
> > work
> > > > on
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> it and
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> even refactor it.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> ~P
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
