Now that we've release 2.9.4g, are we at a point to where we can merge the
3.0.3 branch in with Trunk?  Any thoughts on that either way?
Thanks,
Christopher

I meant to merge, its on my to do list, might take me some time - just started a new job

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Christopher Currens
Sent: 2/28/2012 10:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Lucene.Net] Merging 3.0.3 into Trunk

Now that we've release 2.9.4g, are we at a point to where we can merge the
3.0.3 branch in with Trunk?  Any thoughts on that either way?
Thanks,
Christopher

No sweat, if we're ready to merge it in, I can do it, all while trying not
to break everything! :)
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> I meant to merge, its on my to do list, might take me some time - just
> started a new job
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Christopher Currens
> Sent: 2/28/2012 10:36 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Lucene.Net] Merging 3.0.3 into Trunk
>
> Now that we've release 2.9.4g, are we at a point to where we can merge the
> 3.0.3 branch in with Trunk?  Any thoughts on that either way?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Christopher
>

Alright, it's done!  3.0.3 is now merged in with Trunk!  Let me know if
anyone has any problems.  I ran all of the tests before I committed, but as
soon as I committed it, it said the commit was successful but there were
errors after...I think it was just TortoiseSVN being difficult.  I pulled
the branch again and compared it to what is in trunk, and they're exactly
the same.
Thanks,
Christopher

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Christopher Currens <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> No sweat, if we're ready to merge it in, I can do it, all while trying not
> to break everything! :)
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> I meant to merge, its on my to do list, might take me some time - just
>> started a new job
>>
>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>> ________________________________
>> From: Christopher Currens
>> Sent: 2/28/2012 10:36 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: [Lucene.Net] Merging 3.0.3 into Trunk
>>
>> Now that we've release 2.9.4g, are we at a point to where we can merge the
>> 3.0.3 branch in with Trunk?  Any thoughts on that either way?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Christopher
>>
>
>

On 2012-02-28, Christopher Currens wrote:

> Alright, it's done!  3.0.3 is now merged in with Trunk!

Great!

> Let me know if anyone has any problems.

I'll see to running RAT and looking at the line-ends over the next few
days so we can get them fixed once and not run into it with the release.

Thanks

        Stefan

On 2012-02-29, Stefan Bodewig wrote:

> On 2012-02-28, Christopher Currens wrote:

>> Alright, it's done!  3.0.3 is now merged in with Trunk!

> I'll see to running RAT and looking at the line-ends over the next few
> days so we can get them fixed once and not run into it with the release.

I went for EOLs first and there are 621 files outside of lib and doc
that need to be fixed.  What I have now is not just a patch (of more
than 200k lines), but also a list of 621 files that need their
svn:eol-style property to be set.

I can create a JIRA ticket for that attaching my patch and the list of
files to fix or - since I technically am a committer - could just commit
my cleaned up workspace as is (plus JIRA ticket that I'd open and close
myself).

What would you prefer?

RAT doesn't really make sense before the line feeds are correct (I've
seen quite a few files without license headers by manual inspection).

Stefan

Jira and then just submit your own patch imo

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Stefan Bodewig
Sent: 3/1/2012 7:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Merging 3.0.3 into Trunk

On 2012-02-29, Stefan Bodewig wrote:

> On 2012-02-28, Christopher Currens wrote:

>> Alright, it's done!  3.0.3 is now merged in with Trunk!

> I'll see to running RAT and looking at the line-ends over the next few
> days so we can get them fixed once and not run into it with the release.

I went for EOLs first and there are 621 files outside of lib and doc
that need to be fixed.  What I have now is not just a patch (of more
than 200k lines), but also a list of 621 files that need their
svn:eol-style property to be set.

I can create a JIRA ticket for that attaching my patch and the list of
files to fix or - since I technically am a committer - could just commit
my cleaned up workspace as is (plus JIRA ticket that I'd open and close
myself).

What would you prefer?

RAT doesn't really make sense before the line feeds are correct (I've
seen quite a few files without license headers by manual inspection).

Stefan

I agree with Prescott.  Make a patch for that sucker! :)
Thanks,
Christopher

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Jira and then just submit your own patch imo
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Stefan Bodewig
> Sent: 3/1/2012 7:23 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Merging 3.0.3 into Trunk
>
> On 2012-02-29, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> > On 2012-02-28, Christopher Currens wrote:
>
> >> Alright, it's done!  3.0.3 is now merged in with Trunk!
>
> > I'll see to running RAT and looking at the line-ends over the next few
> > days so we can get them fixed once and not run into it with the release.
>
> I went for EOLs first and there are 621 files outside of lib and doc
> that need to be fixed.  What I have now is not just a patch (of more
> than 200k lines), but also a list of 621 files that need their
> svn:eol-style property to be set.
>
> I can create a JIRA ticket for that attaching my patch and the list of
> files to fix or - since I technically am a committer - could just commit
> my cleaned up workspace as is (plus JIRA ticket that I'd open and close
> myself).
>
> What would you prefer?
>
> RAT doesn't really make sense before the line feeds are correct (I've
> seen quite a few files without license headers by manual inspection).
>
> Stefan
>

On 2012-03-01, Christopher Currens wrote:

> I agree with Prescott.  Make a patch for that sucker! :)

Done

Stefan

Thanks Stefan!
 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 06:23:01 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Merging 3.0.3 into Trunk
>
> On 2012-03-01, Christopher Currens wrote:
>
> > I agree with Prescott.  Make a patch for that sucker! :)
>
> Done
>
> Stefan
     

On 2012-02-29, Stefan Bodewig wrote:

> I'll see to running RAT

LUCENENET-474

> and looking at the line-ends over the next few days so we can get them
> fixed once and not run into it with the release.

I initially forgot the SVGs and strangely had to fix quite a few files
in src (again?), not sure what had happened here.  Sorry for the noise.

Stefan