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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Have at it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > >

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 <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > 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 <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 <

Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and coordinate
further later
On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >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 <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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,

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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and coordinate
> further later
> On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >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 <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 <
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and coordinate
> > further later
> > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >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 <
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > >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

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and coordinate
> > > further later
> > > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > 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 <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >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 <
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I agree

What about the spatial stuff? you guys want to wait for it?

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Christopher Currens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and coordinate
> > > > further later
> > > > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > 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 <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >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 <
> > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <

Spatial could be something cool to look forward to in 3.6 IMO.

I'm good with tagging what we have and I'd like to take a week to allow the community test the tag code against their stuff before cutting release binaries.

+1 to going now.
----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:31:45 +0300
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I agree
>
> What about the spatial stuff? you guys want to wait for it?
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Christopher Currens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
> > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and coordinate
> > > > > further later
> > > > > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > 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 <
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > >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

Ah, I did overlook that.  I imagine that the move from 3.0.3 to 3.6 will
realistically take a while, so if we can't get spatial stuff out before
then, would it take until 3.6 to be able to release new functionality into
the spatial contrib project?  Along those lines, I propose that we move
3.0.3 into a new branch instead of just tagging the release and merging in
3.6.  That way, during the time it takes to port 3.6, we can still do any
critical bug fixes and features like these and release new versions.  At
least then, people won't be waiting for months for bug fixes.

If we did that, then it also might not be critical to get the spatial stuff
out with this release, since we could get out a new release in a few weeks
with updated spatial libraries...not that I'm against waiting for it now.
 It was just a suggestion on how we can move forward with the project.
 Thoughts either way on this?
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> I agree
>
> What about the spatial stuff? you guys want to wait for it?
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Christopher Currens <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
> > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and
> coordinate
> > > > > further later
> > > > > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > 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 <
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >

+1 from me too, then

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Spatial could be something cool to look forward to in 3.6 IMO.
>
> I'm good with tagging what we have and I'd like to take a week to allow
> the community test the tag code against their stuff before cutting release
> binaries.
>
> +1 to going now.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:31:45 +0300
> > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > I agree
> >
> > What about the spatial stuff? you guys want to wait for it?
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Christopher Currens <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and
> coordinate
> > > > > > further later
> > > > > > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > >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

That's probably not a bad idea - we should probably move to a structure like that anyway going forward so that it's easier to manage bug fixes and minor updates in between the "big work"

----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:42:40 -0700
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Ah, I did overlook that. I imagine that the move from 3.0.3 to 3.6 will
> realistically take a while, so if we can't get spatial stuff out before
> then, would it take until 3.6 to be able to release new functionality into
> the spatial contrib project? Along those lines, I propose that we move
> 3.0.3 into a new branch instead of just tagging the release and merging in
> 3.6. That way, during the time it takes to port 3.6, we can still do any
> critical bug fixes and features like these and release new versions. At
> least then, people won't be waiting for months for bug fixes.
>
> If we did that, then it also might not be critical to get the spatial stuff
> out with this release, since we could get out a new release in a few weeks
> with updated spatial libraries...not that I'm against waiting for it now.
> It was just a suggestion on how we can move forward with the project.
> Thoughts either way on this?
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> > I agree
> >
> > What about the spatial stuff? you guys want to wait for it?
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and
> > coordinate
> > > > > > further later
> > > > > > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > 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

On that note, see git-flow
http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/  :)

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> That's probably not a bad idea - we should probably move to a structure
> like that anyway going forward so that it's easier to manage bug fixes and
> minor updates in between the "big work"
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:42:40 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Ah, I did overlook that. I imagine that the move from 3.0.3 to 3.6 will
> > realistically take a while, so if we can't get spatial stuff out before
> > then, would it take until 3.6 to be able to release new functionality
> into
> > the spatial contrib project? Along those lines, I propose that we move
> > 3.0.3 into a new branch instead of just tagging the release and merging
> in
> > 3.6. That way, during the time it takes to port 3.6, we can still do any
> > critical bug fixes and features like these and release new versions. At
> > least then, people won't be waiting for months for bug fixes.
> >
> > If we did that, then it also might not be critical to get the spatial
> stuff
> > out with this release, since we could get out a new release in a few
> weeks
> > with updated spatial libraries...not that I'm against waiting for it now.
> > It was just a suggestion on how we can move forward with the project.
> > Thoughts either way on this?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> > > I agree
> > >
> > > What about the spatial stuff? you guys want to wait for it?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and
>

Yes, we could also release a 3.0.10 or something with the improved spatial
module. Or I can race Prescott's week and get it in before it ends :)

And for heaven's sake, can we move to git when graduating? A live crash
course to all committers is on me.

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Christopher Currens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Ah, I did overlook that.  I imagine that the move from 3.0.3 to 3.6 will
> realistically take a while, so if we can't get spatial stuff out before
> then, would it take until 3.6 to be able to release new functionality into
> the spatial contrib project?  Along those lines, I propose that we move
> 3.0.3 into a new branch instead of just tagging the release and merging in
> 3.6.  That way, during the time it takes to port 3.6, we can still do any
> critical bug fixes and features like these and release new versions.  At
> least then, people won't be waiting for months for bug fixes.
> If we did that, then it also might not be critical to get the spatial stuff
> out with this release, since we could get out a new release in a few weeks
> with updated spatial libraries...not that I'm against waiting for it now.
>  It was just a suggestion on how we can move forward with the project.
>  Thoughts either way on this?
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> > I agree
> >
> > What about the spatial stuff? you guys want to wait for it?
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Go ahead with contrib and tests, ill resume with core and
> > coordinate
> > > > > > further later
> > > > > > On Jul 27, 2012 7:04 PM, "Christopher Currens" <
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > 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

On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:

> And for heaven's sake, can we move to git when graduating?

Given that we're a .NET-focused community, and many of us are likely primarily using Windows as both our primary development and deployment platforms, I'd suggest looking at Mercurial before committing to git.

Either way, +1 for any DVCS.

Did I miss the email where Itamar actually said "And for heaven's sake, can we move to git when graduating?" I think I did. I'll add it to the list of things to discuss as we progress. I believe we discussed this in the past and at the time we had a lazy consensus to stick with svn.
 > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:41:28 -0400
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
>
> > And for heaven's sake, can we move to git when graduating?
>
> Given that we're a .NET-focused community, and many of us are likely primarily using Windows as both our primary development and deployment platforms, I'd suggest looking at Mercurial before committing to git.
>
> Either way, +1 for any DVCS.
     

Nowadays git works just great for Windows, and it's much easier to work
with than Hg

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Zachary Gramana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
>
> > And for heaven's sake, can we move to git when graduating?
>
> Given that we're a .NET-focused community, and many of us are likely
> primarily using Windows as both our primary development and deployment
> platforms, I'd suggest looking at Mercurial before committing to git.
>
> Either way, +1 for any DVCS.
>

fork it and git r done? I couldn't resist. +1 for git.

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Nowadays git works just great for Windows, and it's much easier to work
> with than Hg
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Zachary Gramana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> >
> > > And for heaven's sake, can we move to git when graduating?
> >
> > Given that we're a .NET-focused community, and many of us are likely
> > primarily using Windows as both our primary development and deployment
> > platforms, I'd suggest looking at Mercurial before committing to git.
> >
> > Either way, +1 for any DVCS.
> >
>

On Aug 2, 2012, at 3:04 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:

> Nowadays git works just great for Windows, and it's much easier to work
> with than Hg

In the interest of full disclosure, I have done a lot of work on hosting Mercurial in C# apps and have committed to both Mercurial and IronPython, so one might guess, I view hg > git. I didn't realize the Apache Foundation already had it's own git server + github mirror, though. If the choice is between git and svn, git wins my vote every time.

Actually that's a good point, I don't think mercurial is an option for apache software projects - but I know git was rolled out over the last year as an option

----------------------------------------
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:42:14 -0400
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 3:04 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
>
> > Nowadays git works just great for Windows, and it's much easier to work
> > with than Hg
>
> In the interest of full disclosure, I have done a lot of work on hosting Mercurial in C# apps and have committed to both Mercurial and IronPython, so one might guess, I view hg > git. I didn't realize the Apache Foundation already had it's own git server + github mirror, though. If the choice is between git and svn, git wins my vote every time.    

I would like to pitch into this effort and put my ReSharper license to use. I pulled down trunk, and picked a yellow item at random, and started to dig in. I quickly generated more questions than answers, realized I needed to stop munging code and consult the wiki and list archives. After digging through both, I'm still not entirely certain about what the style guidelines are for 3.x onward.

I also noted this[1] discussion regarding some other guidelines, but it didn't see if it made it beyond the proposal stage.

[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-dev/201112.mbox/%[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E

Here are some of the things Re# is catching that I'm unsure of:

1) Usage of "this" prefix when not required.

this.blah = blah;  <- required this.
this.aBlah = blah; <- optional this, which Re# doesn't like.

I'm assuming consistency wins here, and 'this.' stays, but wanted to double check.

2) Using different conventions for fields and parameters\local vars.

blah vs. _blah

Combined with 1, Re# wants (and I'm personally accustomed to):

_blah = blah;

However, that seems to violate the adopted style.

3) Full qualification of type names.

Re # wants to remove redundant namespace qualifiers. Leave them or remove them?

4) Removing unreferenced classes.

Should I remove non-public unreferenced classes? The ones I've come across so far are private.

5) var vs. explicit

I know this has been brought up before, but not sure of the final disposition. FWIW, I prefer var.
There are some non-Re# issues I came across as well that look like artifacts of code generation:

6) Weird param names.

Param1 vs. directory

I assume it's okay to replace 'Param1' with something a descriptive name like 'directory'.

7) Field names that follow local variable naming conventions.

Lots of issues related to private vars with names like i, j, k, etc. It feels like the right thing to do is to change the scope so that they go back to being local vars instead of fields. However, this requires a much more significant refactoring, and I didn't want to assume it was okay to do that.

If these questions have already been answered elsewhere and I missed the documentation/FAQ/developer guide, then I apologize and would appreciate the links. Alternatively, if someone has a Re# rule config that they are willing to post somewhere, I would be glad to use it.

- Zack
On Jul 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko 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).

I don't think we ever fully adopted the style guidelines, probably not a terrible discussion to have. As for this release, I think that by lazy consensus we should branch the trunk at the end of this weekend (say monday), and begin the process of cutting a release. - my $.02 below
> 1) Usage of "this" prefix when not required.
>
> this.blah = blah; <- required this.
> this.aBlah = blah; <- optional this, which Re# doesn't like.
>
> I'm assuming consistency wins here, and 'this.' stays, but wanted to double check.

I'd error with consistency
>
> 2) Using different conventions for fields and parameters\local vars.
>
> blah vs. _blah
>

> Combined with 1, Re# wants (and I'm personally accustomed to):
>
> _blah = blah;
>
For private variables _ is ok, for anything else, don't use _ as it's not CLR compliant
> However, that seems to violate the adopted style.
>
> 3) Full qualification of type names.
>
> Re # wants to remove redundant namespace qualifiers. Leave them or remove them?
>

I try to remove them

> 4) Removing unreferenced classes.
>
> Should I remove non-public unreferenced classes? The ones I've come across so far are private.
>

I'm not sure I understand - are you saying we have classes that are never used in random places? If so, I think before removing them we should have a conversation; what are they, why are they there, etc. - I'm hoping there aren't too many of these..

> 5) var vs. explicit
>
> I know this has been brought up before, but not sure of the final disposition. FWIW, I prefer var.
>

I use var with it's plainly obvious the object var obj = new MyClass(). I usually use explicit when it's an object returned from some function that makes it unclear what the return value is:
var items = search.GetResults();

vs

IList<SearchResult> items = search.GetResults(); //prefer
>
> There are some non-Re# issues I came across as well that look like artifacts of code generation:
>
> 6) Weird param names.
>
> Param1 vs. directory
>
> I assume it's okay to replace 'Param1' with something a descriptive name like 'directory'.
>

Weird - I think a rename is OK for this release (Since we're ticking up a full version number), but I believe changing param names can potentially break code. That said, I don't really think we need to change the names and push the 3.0.3 release out, and if it does in fact cause breaking changes, I'd be a little careful about how we do it going forward to 3.6.

> 7) Field names that follow local variable naming conventions.
>
> Lots of issues related to private vars with names like i, j, k, etc. It feels like the right thing to do is to change the scope so that they go back to being local vars instead of fields. However, this requires a much more significant refactoring, and I didn't want to assume it was okay to do that.
>

I'd avoid this for now - a lot of this is a carry over from the java version and to rename all those, it starts to get a bit confusing if we have to compare java to C# and these are all changed around.

> If these questions have already been answered elsewhere and I missed the documentation/FAQ/developer guide, then I apologize and would appreciate the links. Alternatively, if someone has a Re# rule config that they are willing to post somewhere, I would be glad to use it.
>

I think we talked about Re#'s rules at one point, I'll try to dig that conversation up and see where it landed. It's probably a good idea for us to build rules though.

> - Zack
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko 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).

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Lucene.Net+3.0.3

Please update the wiki and the changes.TXT file with any changes you're aware of - I will take some time this weekend to comb through everything and add whatever is missing

----------------------------------------
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:13:12 -0700
>
> I don't think we ever fully adopted the style guidelines, probably not a terrible discussion to have. As for this release, I think that by lazy consensus we should branch the trunk at the end of this weekend (say monday), and begin the process of cutting a release. - my $.02 below
>
>
> > 1) Usage of "this" prefix when not required.
> >
> > this.blah = blah; <- required this.
> > this.aBlah = blah; <- optional this, which Re# doesn't like.
> >
> > I'm assuming consistency wins here, and 'this.' stays, but wanted to double check.
>
> I'd error with consistency
>
>
> >
> > 2) Using different conventions for fields and parameters\local vars.
> >
> > blah vs. _blah
> >
>
> > Combined with 1, Re# wants (and I'm personally accustomed to):
> >
> > _blah = blah;
> >
>
>
> For private variables _ is ok, for anything else, don't use _ as it's not CLR compliant
>
>
> > However, that seems to violate the adopted style.
> >
> > 3) Full qualification of type names.
> >
> > Re # wants to remove redundant namespace qualifiers. Leave them or remove them?
> >
>
> I try to remove them
>
> > 4) Removing unreferenced classes.
> >
> > Should I remove non-public unreferenced classes? The ones I've come across so far are private.
> >
>
> I'm not sure I understand - are you saying we have classes that are never used in random places? If so, I think before removing them we should have a conversation; what are they, why are they there, etc. - I'm hoping there aren't too many of these..
>
> > 5) var vs. explicit
> >
> > I know this has been brought up before, but not sure of the final disposition. FWIW, I prefer var.
> >
>
> I use var with it's plainly obvious the object var obj = new MyClass(). I usually use explicit when it's an object returned from some function that makes it unclear what the return value is:
>
>
> var items = search.GetResults();
>
> vs
>
> IList<SearchResult> items = search.GetResults(); //prefer
>
>
> >
> > There are some non-Re# issues I came across as well that look like artifacts of code generation:
> >
> > 6) Weird param names.
> >
> > Param1 vs. directory
> >
> > I assume it's okay to replace 'Param1' with something a descriptive name like 'directory'.
> >
>
> Weird - I think a rename is OK for this release (Since we're ticking up a full version number), but I believe changing param names can potentially break code. That said, I don't really think we need to change the names and push the 3.0.3 release out, and if it does in fact cause breaking changes, I'd be a little careful about how we do it going forward to 3.6.
>
> > 7) Field names that follow local variable naming conventions.
> >
> > Lots of issues related to private vars with names like i, j, k, etc. It feels like the right thing to do is to change the scope so that they go back to being local vars instead of fields. However, this requires a much more significant refactoring, and I didn't want to assume it was okay to do that.
> >
>
> I'd avoid this for now - a lot of this is a carry over from the java version and to rename all those, it starts to get a bit confusing if we have to compare java to C# and these are all changed around.
>
>
>
> > If these questions have already been answered elsewhere and I missed the documentation/FAQ/developer guide, then I apologize and would appreciate the links. Alternatively, if someone has a Re# rule config that they are willing to post somewhere, I would be glad to use it.
> >
>
> I think we talked about Re#'s rules at one point, I'll try to dig that conversation up and see where it landed. It's probably a good idea for us to build rules though.

The point is to make the code better, not to satisfy R# :)

The main benefit of this process is marking fields as readonly, finding
code paths with stupid behavior and moving simple aggregations to use LINQ.
I don't apply the LINQ syntax to a non-trivial operations, to make it
easier to keep track of the Java version.

My thoughts on the points you raised inline

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Zachary Gramana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I would like to pitch into this effort and put my ReSharper license to
> use. I pulled down trunk, and picked a yellow item at random, and started
> to dig in. I quickly generated more questions than answers, realized I
> needed to stop munging code and consult the wiki and list archives. After
> digging through both, I'm still not entirely certain about what the style
> guidelines are for 3.x onward.
>
> I also noted this[1] discussion regarding some other guidelines, but it
> didn't see if it made it beyond the proposal stage.
>
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-dev/201112.mbox/%[EMAIL PROTECTED]%3E
>
> Here are some of the things Re# is catching that I'm unsure of:
>
> 1) Usage of "this" prefix when not required.
>
> this.blah = blah;  <- required this.
> this.aBlah = blah; <- optional this, which Re# doesn't like.
>
> I'm assuming consistency wins here, and 'this.' stays, but wanted to
> double check.
>

Doesn't really matter IMO. I just hit Alt-enter when I have it in focus,
otherwise I ignore that.
>
> 2) Using different conventions for fields and parameters\local vars.
>
> blah vs. _blah
>
> Combined with 1, Re# wants (and I'm personally accustomed to):
>
> _blah = blah;
>
> However, that seems to violate the adopted style.
>

I think we should stick to the Java naming conventions in the private parts
(minus the function casings) as much as possible. Main reason is the
ability to apply patches from Java Lucene and support future ports more
easily. This is why I kept variable names untouched.
>
> 3) Full qualification of type names.
>
> Re # wants to remove redundant namespace qualifiers. Leave them or remove
> them?
>

Same as Alt-Enter argument as above...
>
> 4) Removing unreferenced classes.
>
> Should I remove non-public unreferenced classes? The ones I've come across
> so far are private.
>

It's .NET, not C++, but I still usually remove them, not really sure why
tho...
>
> 5) var vs. explicit
>
> I know this has been brought up before, but not sure of the final
> disposition. FWIW, I prefer var.
>
>
> There are some non-Re# issues I came across as well that look like
> artifacts of code generation:
>

I move to var because it *might* help in the future when the API changes,
and it doesn't really affect anything now
>
> 6) Weird param names.
>
> Param1 vs. directory
>
> I assume it's okay to replace 'Param1' with something a descriptive name
> like 'directory'.
>

Yes. Also var names like out_Renamed to @out. This one is important.
>
> 7) Field names that follow local variable naming conventions.
>
> Lots of issues related to private vars with names like i, j, k, etc. It
> feels like the right thing to do is to change the scope so that they go
> back to being local vars instead of fields. However, this requires a much
> more significant refactoring, and I didn't want to assume it was okay to do
> that.
>

See above, I don't think we should touch those.
>
> If these questions have already been answered elsewhere and I missed the
> documentation/FAQ/developer guide, then I apologize and would appreciate
> the links. Alternatively, if someone has a Re# rule config that they are
> willing to post somewhere, I would be glad to use it.
>
> - Zack
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko 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.

Prescott - we could make an RC and push it to Nuget as a PreRelease, to get
real feedback.

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> I don't think we ever fully adopted the style guidelines, probably not a
> terrible discussion to have. As for this release, I think that by lazy
> consensus we should branch the trunk at the end of this weekend (say
> monday), and begin the process of cutting a release. - my $.02 below
>
>
> > 1) Usage of "this" prefix when not required.
> >
> > this.blah = blah; <- required this.
> > this.aBlah = blah; <- optional this, which Re# doesn't like.
> >
> > I'm assuming consistency wins here, and 'this.' stays, but wanted to
> double check.
>
> I'd error with consistency
>
>
> >
> > 2) Using different conventions for fields and parameters\local vars.
> >
> > blah vs. _blah
> >
>
> > Combined with 1, Re# wants (and I'm personally accustomed to):
> >
> > _blah = blah;
> >
>
>
> For private variables _ is ok, for anything else, don't use _ as it's not
> CLR compliant
>
>
> > However, that seems to violate the adopted style.
> >
> > 3) Full qualification of type names.
> >
> > Re # wants to remove redundant namespace qualifiers. Leave them or
> remove them?
> >
>
> I try to remove them
>
> > 4) Removing unreferenced classes.
> >
> > Should I remove non-public unreferenced classes? The ones I've come
> across so far are private.
> >
>
> I'm not sure I understand - are you saying we have classes that are never
> used in random places? If so, I think before removing them we should have a
> conversation; what are they, why are they there, etc. - I'm hoping there
> aren't too many of these..
>
> > 5) var vs. explicit
> >
> > I know this has been brought up before, but not sure of the final
> disposition. FWIW, I prefer var.
> >
>
> I use var with it's plainly obvious the object var obj = new MyClass(). I
> usually use explicit when it's an object returned from some function that
> makes it unclear what the return value is:
>
>
> var items = search.GetResults();
>
> vs
>
> IList<SearchResult> items = search.GetResults(); //prefer
>
>
> >
> > There are some non-Re# issues I came across as well that look like
> artifacts of code generation:
> >
> > 6) Weird param names.
> >
> > Param1 vs. directory
> >
> > I assume it's okay to replace 'Param1' with something a descriptive name
> like 'directory'.
> >
>
> Weird - I think a rename is OK for this release (Since we're ticking up a
> full version number), but I believe changing param names can potentially
> break code. That said, I don't really think we need to change the names and
> push the 3.0.3 release out, and if it does in fact cause breaking changes,
> I'd be a little careful about how we do it going forward to 3.6.
>
> > 7) Field names that follow local variable naming conventions.
> >
> > Lots of issues related to private vars with names like i, j, k, etc. It
> feels like the right thing to do is to change the scope so that they go
> back to being local vars instead of fields. However, this requires a much
> more significant refactoring, and I didn't want to assume it was okay to do
> that.
> >
>
> I'd avoid this for now - a lot of this is a carry over from the java
> version and to rename all those, it starts to get a bit confusing if we
> have to compare java to C# and these are all changed around.
>
>
>
> > If these questions have already been answered elsewhere and I missed the
> documentation/FAQ/developer guide, then I apologize and would appreciate
> the links. Alternatively, if someone has a Re# rule config that they are
> willing to post somewhere, I would be glad to use it.
> >
>
> I think we talked about Re#'s rules at one point, I'll try to dig that
> conversation up and see where it landed. It's probably a good idea for us
> to build rules though.
>
> > - Zack
> >
> >
> > On Jul 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> >
> > > The cleanup consists mainly of going file by file with ReSharper and

Excellent Idea - I'll do that monday to give you guys the weekend to do any last minute code cleaning you want.
----------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 19:30:02 +0300
> Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Prescott - we could make an RC and push it to Nuget as a PreRelease, to get
> real feedback.
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> > I don't think we ever fully adopted the style guidelines, probably not a
> > terrible discussion to have. As for this release, I think that by lazy
> > consensus we should branch the trunk at the end of this weekend (say
> > monday), and begin the process of cutting a release. - my $.02 below
> >
> >
> > > 1) Usage of "this" prefix when not required.
> > >
> > > this.blah = blah; <- required this.
> > > this.aBlah = blah; <- optional this, which Re# doesn't like.
> > >
> > > I'm assuming consistency wins here, and 'this.' stays, but wanted to
> > double check.
> >
> > I'd error with consistency
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 2) Using different conventions for fields and parameters\local vars.
> > >
> > > blah vs. _blah
> > >
> >
> > > Combined with 1, Re# wants (and I'm personally accustomed to):
> > >
> > > _blah = blah;
> > >
> >
> >
> > For private variables _ is ok, for anything else, don't use _ as it's not
> > CLR compliant
> >
> >
> > > However, that seems to violate the adopted style.
> > >
> > > 3) Full qualification of type names.
> > >
> > > Re # wants to remove redundant namespace qualifiers. Leave them or
> > remove them?
> > >
> >
> > I try to remove them
> >
> > > 4) Removing unreferenced classes.
> > >
> > > Should I remove non-public unreferenced classes? The ones I've come
> > across so far are private.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand - are you saying we have classes that are never
> > used in random places? If so, I think before removing them we should have a
> > conversation; what are they, why are they there, etc. - I'm hoping there
> > aren't too many of these..
> >
> > > 5) var vs. explicit
> > >
> > > I know this has been brought up before, but not sure of the final
> > disposition. FWIW, I prefer var.
> > >
> >
> > I use var with it's plainly obvious the object var obj = new MyClass(). I
> > usually use explicit when it's an object returned from some function that
> > makes it unclear what the return value is:
> >
> >
> > var items = search.GetResults();
> >
> > vs
> >
> > IList<SearchResult> items = search.GetResults(); //prefer
> >
> >
> > >
> > > There are some non-Re# issues I came across as well that look like
> > artifacts of code generation:
> > >
> > > 6) Weird param names.
> > >
> > > Param1 vs. directory
> > >
> > > I assume it's okay to replace 'Param1' with something a descriptive name
> > like 'directory'.
> > >
> >
> > Weird - I think a rename is OK for this release (Since we're ticking up a
> > full version number), but I believe changing param names can potentially
> > break code. That said, I don't really think we need to change the names and
> > push the 3.0.3 release out, and if it does in fact cause breaking changes,
> > I'd be a little careful about how we do it going forward to 3.6.
> >
> > > 7) Field names that follow local variable naming conventions.
> > >
> > > Lots of issues related to private vars with names like i, j, k, etc. It
> > feels like the right thing to do is to change the scope so that they go
> > back to being local vars instead of fields. However, this requires a much
> > more significant refactoring, and I didn't want to assume it was okay to do
> > that.
> > >
> >
> > I'd avoid this for now - a lot of this is a carry over from the java
> > version and to rename all those, it starts to get a bit confusing if we
> > have to compare java to C# and these are all changed around.
> >
> >
> >
> > > If these questions have already been answered elsewhere and I missed the
> > documentation/FAQ/developer guide, then I apologize and would appreciate

if you do rename stuff other than poorly named signature parameters, its
helpful to document the java version's name and the reason for the rename.
Even for java, some of the internal naming makes the code that much harder
to understand and follow.

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Excellent Idea - I'll do that monday to give you guys the weekend to do
> any last minute code cleaning you want.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 19:30:02 +0300
> > Subject: Re: Outstanding issues for 3.0.3
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Prescott - we could make an RC and push it to Nuget as a PreRelease, to
> get
> > real feedback.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think we ever fully adopted the style guidelines, probably not
> a
> > > terrible discussion to have. As for this release, I think that by lazy
> > > consensus we should branch the trunk at the end of this weekend (say
> > > monday), and begin the process of cutting a release. - my $.02 below
> > >
> > >
> > > > 1) Usage of "this" prefix when not required.
> > > >
> > > > this.blah = blah; <- required this.
> > > > this.aBlah = blah; <- optional this, which Re# doesn't like.
> > > >
> > > > I'm assuming consistency wins here, and 'this.' stays, but wanted to
> > > double check.
> > >
> > > I'd error with consistency
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2) Using different conventions for fields and parameters\local vars.
> > > >
> > > > blah vs. _blah
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Combined with 1, Re# wants (and I'm personally accustomed to):
> > > >
> > > > _blah = blah;
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For private variables _ is ok, for anything else, don't use _ as it's
> not
> > > CLR compliant
> > >
> > >
> > > > However, that seems to violate the adopted style.
> > > >
> > > > 3) Full qualification of type names.
> > > >
> > > > Re # wants to remove redundant namespace qualifiers. Leave them or
> > > remove them?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I try to remove them
> > >
> > > > 4) Removing unreferenced classes.
> > > >
> > > > Should I remove non-public unreferenced classes? The ones I've come
> > > across so far are private.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I understand - are you saying we have classes that are
> never
> > > used in random places? If so, I think before removing them we should
> have a
> > > conversation; what are they, why are they there, etc. - I'm hoping
> there
> > > aren't too many of these..
> > >
> > > > 5) var vs. explicit
> > > >
> > > > I know this has been brought up before, but not sure of the final
> > > disposition. FWIW, I prefer var.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I use var with it's plainly obvious the object var obj = new
> MyClass(). I
> > > usually use explicit when it's an object returned from some function
> that
> > > makes it unclear what the return value is:
> > >
> > >
> > > var items = search.GetResults();
> > >
> > > vs
> > >
> > > IList<SearchResult> items = search.GetResults(); //prefer
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There are some non-Re# issues I came across as well that look like
> > > artifacts of code generation:
> > > >
> > > > 6) Weird param names.
> > > >
> > > > Param1 vs. directory
> > > >
> > > > I assume it's okay to replace 'Param1' with something a descriptive
> name
> > > like 'directory'.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Weird - I think a rename is OK for this release (Since we're ticking
> up a
> > > full version number), but I believe changing param names can
> potentially
> > > break code. That said, I don't really think we need to change the
> names and
> > > push the 3.0.3 release out, and if it does in fact cause breaking
> changes,
> > > I'd be a little careful about how we do it going forward to 3.6.
> > >
> > > > 7) Field names that follow local variable naming conventions.
> > > >
> > > > Lots of issues related to private vars with names like i, j, k, etc.
> It
> >