Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Lucene and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Lucene.Net, mail # dev - RE: [Lucene.Net] 3.0.3


Copy link to this message
-
RE: [Lucene.Net] 3.0.3
Prescott Nasser 2012-02-13, 03:52
Yes, we should merge 3.0.3 into the trunk - thanks for the follow up on 3.0.3

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Christopher Currens
Sent: 2/12/2012 6:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 3.0.3

I was sick for a while, but I finally had time to check and see if the java
issues below were already ported or not.  I can confirm that all of those
changes, if applicable, were already included in the 3.0.3 branch.  When I
say if application, I mean issues like this one:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2653, haven't been ported
because there's no real equivalent in .NET.  This one in particular deals
with a BreakIterator, which I deals with culture sensitive text boundaries.
 There is not a .NET equivalent for that, as far as I know.

So, from what I can tell, it looks like the core assembly for 3.0.3 should
include all bug fixes and such from java.  Contrib is largely there, as
well, but there are still a few libraries that haven't/can't easily be
ported.

On this subject, it looks like 2.9.4 was successfully voted for release.
 Does this mean we are soon merging 3.0.3 into trunk?  There are only a few
issues regarding .NET-ification that I think are blocking a 3.0.3 release.
Thanks,
Christopher

On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Christopher Currens <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 2653, 2055, 2776, 2732, 2688, 2616, 2524, 2398, 2284, 2278, 2277, and 2249
> are all on JIRA that aren't on that list in the CHANGES.txt file.  It looks
> like that file in SVN has some issues that aren't listen in JIRA.  Anyway,
> it's possible that those issues listed here have already been ported as
> part of that changeset.  I'm basing that on the fact that the last time
> these bugs were updated was Dec 1st 2010, which was before the code was
> released.  However, we should still check to make sure.
>
> Thanks,
> Christopher
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Christopher Currens <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I can only guarantee that these 31 bugs here (in the 3.0.3 version):
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_3_0_3/CHANGES.txt are
>> part of the code.  I mean, it's possible that other's are, but we'd really
>> need to check the others listed there to be sure that they are also
>> included.  However, that's only a difference of 9 bugs, so I think we're
>> very close to a 3.0.3 release, depending on how many issues we want to get
>> done that related to changing the API.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Christopher
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So, Chris if you did this as a direct port of the java version (
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_3_0_3/), Does
>>> that mean that all of the LUCENE JIRA issues (
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=project+%3D+LUCENE+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%223.0.3%22+AND+status+%3D+Closed+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC&mode=hide)
>>> are part of this code already? That would make 3.0.3 well on it's way to
>>> release... ~P
>>>  > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> > Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:35:25 +0100
>>> > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 3.0.3
>>> >
>>> > On 2012-01-25, Michael Herndon wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Do we have a standard of copy or tag of Java's version source that
>>> we're
>>> > > doing a compare against?  I only see the 3_1 and above in the tags.
>>> >
>>> > Likely because the svn location has changed in between.  I think it
>>> must
>>> > be <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_3_0_3/>
>>> >
>>> > Stefan
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>