Actually there was some clean up work I started doing and would want to complete, and also sign off on the suspected corruption issue we raised. I'm afraid I won't have much time this week to properly do all that, but I'll keep you posted.
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>wrote: > > Alright, latest patch fixed what could be done with the cls issues at > present. With that, I think we are ready to roll with a release. If people > could please take some time to run all the test as well as whatever other > tests they might run. We've had some issues with tests only happening on > some systems so I want to make sure we have those bases covered. Unless > there is anything else that should be done, I'll leave every one a week to > run their tests. Next saturday I will tag the trunk and cut a release with > both 3.5 and 4.0 binaries. Great work everyone. ~P > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 18:02:30 -0700 > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3 > > From: currens.ch...@gmail.com > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > > I can set a different build target, but I can't set the actual framework > to > > 3.5 without doing it for all build configurations. On top of that, 3.5 > > needs System.Core to be referenced, which is done automatically in .NET 4 > > (I'm not sure if MSBuild v4 does it automatically?). I did kinda get it > > working by putting a TargetFrameworkVersion tag of 4.0 in Debug and > Release > > configurations and 3.5 in Debug 3.5 and Release 3.5 configurations, but > > that's a little...well, difficult to maintain by hand since visual studio > > doesn't allow you to set different framework versions per configuration, > > and visual studio seemed to be having trouble with references, since both > > frameworks were being referenced. > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com > >wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
