I think that while it would be nice to get it done, it's a fairly large effort, and we might be better off with doing a release. The tests are massively changed between 3.0.3 and 3.6, so I think a lot of it will get cleaned up anyway during the port. Also, a little while back, I did clean up a lot of the test code to use Assert.Throws and to remove unnecessary variables, though that might have only been in catch statements. Either way, I think we just might be ready as it is.
I am eager to start working on porting 3.6. Thanks, Christopher On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>wrote: > I still have plenty to go on, but on a second thought we could do that work > just the same when we work towards 3.6, so I won't hold you off anymore > > Up to Chris - he wanted to do some tests cleanup > > Also, I'll be updating the Spatial contrib during the next week or so with > polygon support. I think we should hold off the release so we can provide > that as well, but I suggest we will take a vote on it, don't let me hold > you off. > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com > >wrote: > > > Just wanted to check in - where do we feel like we stand? What is left to > > do - is there anything I can help with specifically? I'll have some spare > > cycles this weekend. I want to really make a push to get this ready to > roll > > and not let it languish > > > > ~P > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:38:10 +0300 > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3 > > > From: ita...@code972.com > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and coordinate > > > further later > > > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" < > currens.ch...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I've got resharper and can help with that if you'd like to coordinate > > it. > > > > I can take a one or some of the contrib projects or part of the main > > > > library, or *shudder* the any of the test libraries. The code has > > needed > > > > come cleaning up for a while and some of the clean up work is an > > > > optimization some levels, so I'm definitely okay with spending some > > time > > > > doing that. I'm okay with waiting longer as long as something is > > getting > > > > done. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Christopher > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko < > > ita...@code972.com > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper > and > > > > trying > > > > > to get them as green as possible. Making a lot of fields readonly, > > > > removing > > > > > unused vars and stuff like that. There are still loads of files > left. > > > > > > > > > > I was also hoping to get to updating the spatial module with some > > recent > > > > > updates, and to also support polygon searches. But that may take a > > bit > > > > more > > > > > time, so it's really up to you guys (or we can open a vote for it). > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Christopher Currens < > > > > > currens.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Itamar, > > > > > > > > > > > > Where do we stand on the clean up now? Is there anything in > > particular > > > > > > that you're doing that you'd like help with? I have some free > time > > > > today > > > > > > and am eager to get this version released. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Christopher > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Prescott Nasser < > > > > geobmx...@hotmail.com > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alright, I'll hold off a bit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 22:59:32 +0300 > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3 > > > > > > > > From: ita...@code972.com > > > > > > > > To: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > > > CC: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
