Re: (LUCENE-2037) Allow Junit4 tests in our environment.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (LUCENE-2037) Allow Junit4 tests in our environment.

Michael McCandless-2
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Erick Erickson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I generified the searches/function files in patch 2037. I don't really think
> there's a conflict, just commit my patch and have at generifying the rest.

OK so then we'll start with 2037, then take 2065's patch, hopefully
updated to current trunk, but minus search/function sources.

> I know, I know. I did two things at once. So sue me. Honest, I'll try not to
> do this very often <G>...

In fact I prefer this.  I used to think we shouldn't do that but I
flip-flopped and now think in practice you just have to clean code
while you're there, otherwise it won't get cleaned.

> Mike:
> You really want to to the generify the whole shootin' match or do you want
> to partition them? I'll be happy to take a set of them. Or would that make
> things too complicated to apply?

2065 already has done alot here (adding generics to the tests)... I
think we start from that and take it from there?

Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (LUCENE-2037) Allow Junit4 tests in our environment.

Erick Erickson
I didn't realize 2065 had already been down this path, thought
you were volunteering to change all the code starting from
scratch. Your approach sounds like a fine plan.

Note that I'm not entirely sure that I cleaned up *everything*, but we
need to get to a known state before tackling the rest, so I'll wait for
these two patches to be applied before looking back at it...

Not to mention the Localized test thing.....

Erick


On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Michael McCandless <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Erick Erickson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I generified the searches/function files in patch 2037. I don't really think
> there's a conflict, just commit my patch and have at generifying the rest.

OK so then we'll start with 2037, then take 2065's patch, hopefully
updated to current trunk, but minus search/function sources.

> I know, I know. I did two things at once. So sue me. Honest, I'll try not to
> do this very often <G>...

In fact I prefer this.  I used to think we shouldn't do that but I
flip-flopped and now think in practice you just have to clean code
while you're there, otherwise it won't get cleaned.

> Mike:
> You really want to to the generify the whole shootin' match or do you want
> to partition them? I'll be happy to take a set of them. Or would that make
> things too complicated to apply?

2065 already has done alot here (adding generics to the tests)... I
think we start from that and take it from there?

Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (LUCENE-2037) Allow Junit4 tests in our environment.

Kay Kay-2-3
I created Lucene-2065 while working on 1257 , the original generics
related ticket , and since we were running out of time for 3.0 ,  I
guess we could not get src/test converted in.

In any case , if you were comitting this one (2037) to trunk ,  may be I
can wait before creating the patch again.





Erick Erickson wrote:

> I didn't realize 2065 had already been down this path, thought
> you were volunteering to change all the code starting from
> scratch. Your approach sounds like a fine plan.
>
> Note that I'm not entirely sure that I cleaned up *everything*, but we
> need to get to a known state before tackling the rest, so I'll wait for
> these two patches to be applied before looking back at it...
>
> Not to mention the Localized test thing.....
>
> Erick
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Michael McCandless
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Erick Erickson
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>     > I generified the searches/function files in patch 2037. I don't
>     really think
>     > there's a conflict, just commit my patch and have at generifying
>     the rest.
>
>     OK so then we'll start with 2037, then take 2065's patch, hopefully
>     updated to current trunk, but minus search/function sources.
>
>     > I know, I know. I did two things at once. So sue me. Honest,
>     I'll try not to
>     > do this very often <G>...
>
>     In fact I prefer this.  I used to think we shouldn't do that but I
>     flip-flopped and now think in practice you just have to clean code
>     while you're there, otherwise it won't get cleaned.
>
>     > Mike:
>     > You really want to to the generify the whole shootin' match or
>     do you want
>     > to partition them? I'll be happy to take a set of them. Or would
>     that make
>     > things too complicated to apply?
>
>     2065 already has done alot here (adding generics to the tests)... I
>     think we start from that and take it from there?
>
>     Mike
>
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (LUCENE-2037) Allow Junit4 tests in our environment.

Erick Erickson
That's up to Mike, whichever way he finds easiest, I'll deal.

Erick

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Kay Kay <[hidden email]> wrote:
I created Lucene-2065 while working on 1257 , the original generics related ticket , and since we were running out of time for 3.0 ,  I guess we could not get src/test converted in.

In any case , if you were comitting this one (2037) to trunk ,  may be I can wait before creating the patch again.




Erick Erickson wrote:
I didn't realize 2065 had already been down this path, thought
you were volunteering to change all the code starting from
scratch. Your approach sounds like a fine plan.

Note that I'm not entirely sure that I cleaned up *everything*, but we
need to get to a known state before tackling the rest, so I'll wait for
these two patches to be applied before looking back at it...

Not to mention the Localized test thing.....

Erick


On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Michael McCandless <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

   On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Erick Erickson
   <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
   > I generified the searches/function files in patch 2037. I don't
   really think
   > there's a conflict, just commit my patch and have at generifying
   the rest.

   OK so then we'll start with 2037, then take 2065's patch, hopefully
   updated to current trunk, but minus search/function sources.

   > I know, I know. I did two things at once. So sue me. Honest,
   I'll try not to
   > do this very often <G>...

   In fact I prefer this.  I used to think we shouldn't do that but I
   flip-flopped and now think in practice you just have to clean code
   while you're there, otherwise it won't get cleaned.

   > Mike:
   > You really want to to the generify the whole shootin' match or
   do you want
   > to partition them? I'll be happy to take a set of them. Or would
   that make
   > things too complicated to apply?

   2065 already has done alot here (adding generics to the tests)... I
   think we start from that and take it from there?

   Mike

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
   <mailto:[hidden email]>

   For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
   <mailto:[hidden email]>




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (LUCENE-2037) Allow Junit4 tests in our environment.

Kay Kay-2-3
Mike -
 I have attached another patch to LUCENE-2065 , in sync with the trunk now.




Erick Erickson wrote:

> That's up to Mike, whichever way he finds easiest, I'll deal.
>
> Erick
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Kay Kay <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     I created Lucene-2065 while working on 1257 , the original
>     generics related ticket , and since we were running out of time
>     for 3.0 ,  I guess we could not get src/test converted in.
>
>     In any case , if you were comitting this one (2037) to trunk ,
>      may be I can wait before creating the patch again.
>
>
>
>
>     Erick Erickson wrote:
>
>         I didn't realize 2065 had already been down this path, thought
>         you were volunteering to change all the code starting from
>         scratch. Your approach sounds like a fine plan.
>
>         Note that I'm not entirely sure that I cleaned up
>         *everything*, but we
>         need to get to a known state before tackling the rest, so I'll
>         wait for
>         these two patches to be applied before looking back at it...
>
>         Not to mention the Localized test thing.....
>
>         Erick
>
>
>         On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Michael McCandless
>         <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>
>            On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Erick Erickson
>            <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>            > I generified the searches/function files in patch 2037. I
>         don't
>            really think
>            > there's a conflict, just commit my patch and have at
>         generifying
>            the rest.
>
>            OK so then we'll start with 2037, then take 2065's patch,
>         hopefully
>            updated to current trunk, but minus search/function sources.
>
>            > I know, I know. I did two things at once. So sue me. Honest,
>            I'll try not to
>            > do this very often <G>...
>
>            In fact I prefer this.  I used to think we shouldn't do
>         that but I
>            flip-flopped and now think in practice you just have to
>         clean code
>            while you're there, otherwise it won't get cleaned.
>
>            > Mike:
>            > You really want to to the generify the whole shootin'
>         match or
>            do you want
>            > to partition them? I'll be happy to take a set of them.
>         Or would
>            that make
>            > things too complicated to apply?
>
>            2065 already has done alot here (adding generics to the
>         tests)... I
>            think we start from that and take it from there?
>
>            Mike
>
>          
>          ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>            To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>         [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>            <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
>            For additional commands, e-mail:
>         [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>            <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
>
>
>
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (LUCENE-2037) Allow Junit4 tests in our environment.

Erick Erickson
Mike:

I should be able to create a new 2037 patch pretty easily if you
want to apply 2065 first. Let me know....

Erick

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Kay Kay <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mike -
I have attached another patch to LUCENE-2065 , in sync with the trunk now.




Erick Erickson wrote:
That's up to Mike, whichever way he finds easiest, I'll deal.

Erick

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Kay Kay <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

   I created Lucene-2065 while working on 1257 , the original
   generics related ticket , and since we were running out of time
   for 3.0 ,  I guess we could not get src/test converted in.

   In any case , if you were comitting this one (2037) to trunk ,
    may be I can wait before creating the patch again.




   Erick Erickson wrote:

       I didn't realize 2065 had already been down this path, thought
       you were volunteering to change all the code starting from
       scratch. Your approach sounds like a fine plan.

       Note that I'm not entirely sure that I cleaned up
       *everything*, but we
       need to get to a known state before tackling the rest, so I'll
       wait for
       these two patches to be applied before looking back at it...

       Not to mention the Localized test thing.....

       Erick


       On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Michael McCandless
       <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
       <mailto:[hidden email]

       <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:

          On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Erick Erickson
          <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
       <mailto:[hidden email]

       <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
          > I generified the searches/function files in patch 2037. I
       don't
          really think
          > there's a conflict, just commit my patch and have at
       generifying
          the rest.

          OK so then we'll start with 2037, then take 2065's patch,
       hopefully
          updated to current trunk, but minus search/function sources.

          > I know, I know. I did two things at once. So sue me. Honest,
          I'll try not to
          > do this very often <G>...

          In fact I prefer this.  I used to think we shouldn't do
       that but I
          flip-flopped and now think in practice you just have to
       clean code
          while you're there, otherwise it won't get cleaned.

          > Mike:
          > You really want to to the generify the whole shootin'
       match or
          do you want
          > to partition them? I'll be happy to take a set of them.
       Or would
          that make
          > things too complicated to apply?

          2065 already has done alot here (adding generics to the
       tests)... I
          think we start from that and take it from there?

          Mike

                ---------------------------------------------------------------------
          To unsubscribe, e-mail:
       [hidden email]
       <mailto:[hidden email]>
          <mailto:[hidden email]
       <mailto:[hidden email]>>

          For additional commands, e-mail:
       [hidden email]
       <mailto:[hidden email]>
          <mailto:[hidden email]
       <mailto:[hidden email]>>




   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
   <mailto:[hidden email]>
   For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
   <mailto:[hidden email]>




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (LUCENE-2037) Allow Junit4 tests in our environment.

Michael McCandless-2
OK I'll apply 2065 first, then we'll iterate on 2037 and get it in --
thanks Erick and Kay Kay!  It's wonderful you all are putting in the
energy to keep our tests current :)

Mike

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Erick Erickson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Mike:
>
> I should be able to create a new 2037 patch pretty easily if you
> want to apply 2065 first. Let me know....
>
> Erick
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Kay Kay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Mike -
>> I have attached another patch to LUCENE-2065 , in sync with the trunk now.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Erick Erickson wrote:
>>>
>>> That's up to Mike, whichever way he finds easiest, I'll deal.
>>>
>>> Erick
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Kay Kay <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    I created Lucene-2065 while working on 1257 , the original
>>>    generics related ticket , and since we were running out of time
>>>    for 3.0 ,  I guess we could not get src/test converted in.
>>>
>>>    In any case , if you were comitting this one (2037) to trunk ,
>>>     may be I can wait before creating the patch again.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    Erick Erickson wrote:
>>>
>>>        I didn't realize 2065 had already been down this path, thought
>>>        you were volunteering to change all the code starting from
>>>        scratch. Your approach sounds like a fine plan.
>>>
>>>        Note that I'm not entirely sure that I cleaned up
>>>        *everything*, but we
>>>        need to get to a known state before tackling the rest, so I'll
>>>        wait for
>>>        these two patches to be applied before looking back at it...
>>>
>>>        Not to mention the Localized test thing.....
>>>
>>>        Erick
>>>
>>>
>>>        On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Michael McCandless
>>>        <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>        <mailto:[hidden email]
>>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>           On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Erick Erickson
>>>           <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>        <mailto:[hidden email]
>>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>>>           > I generified the searches/function files in patch 2037. I
>>>        don't
>>>           really think
>>>           > there's a conflict, just commit my patch and have at
>>>        generifying
>>>           the rest.
>>>
>>>           OK so then we'll start with 2037, then take 2065's patch,
>>>        hopefully
>>>           updated to current trunk, but minus search/function sources.
>>>
>>>           > I know, I know. I did two things at once. So sue me. Honest,
>>>           I'll try not to
>>>           > do this very often <G>...
>>>
>>>           In fact I prefer this.  I used to think we shouldn't do
>>>        that but I
>>>           flip-flopped and now think in practice you just have to
>>>        clean code
>>>           while you're there, otherwise it won't get cleaned.
>>>
>>>           > Mike:
>>>           > You really want to to the generify the whole shootin'
>>>        match or
>>>           do you want
>>>           > to partition them? I'll be happy to take a set of them.
>>>        Or would
>>>           that make
>>>           > things too complicated to apply?
>>>
>>>           2065 already has done alot here (adding generics to the
>>>        tests)... I
>>>           think we start from that and take it from there?
>>>
>>>           Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>           To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>        [hidden email]
>>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>           <mailto:[hidden email]
>>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>>
>>>           For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>        [hidden email]
>>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>           <mailto:[hidden email]
>>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>    To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>    <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>    For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>    <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (LUCENE-2037) Allow Junit4 tests in our environment.

Kay Kay-2-3
In reply to this post by Erick Erickson
Erick / Mike -
   With 2065 commited onto trunk now - I created another patch for 2037
and attached in the ticket.
3 classes remain pending though due to conflicts , that I had listed
with the patch. But we can probably revisit them subsequently.  Please
review them to serve as a starting point for the same.


Erick Erickson wrote:

> Mike:
>
> I should be able to create a new 2037 patch pretty easily if you
> want to apply 2065 first. Let me know....
>
> Erick
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Kay Kay <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Mike -
>     I have attached another patch to LUCENE-2065 , in sync with the
>     trunk now.
>
>
>
>
>     Erick Erickson wrote:
>
>         That's up to Mike, whichever way he finds easiest, I'll deal.
>
>         Erick
>
>         On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Kay Kay
>         <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>
>            I created Lucene-2065 while working on 1257 , the original
>            generics related ticket , and since we were running out of time
>            for 3.0 ,  I guess we could not get src/test converted in.
>
>            In any case , if you were comitting this one (2037) to trunk ,
>             may be I can wait before creating the patch again.
>
>
>
>
>            Erick Erickson wrote:
>
>                I didn't realize 2065 had already been down this path,
>         thought
>                you were volunteering to change all the code starting from
>                scratch. Your approach sounds like a fine plan.
>
>                Note that I'm not entirely sure that I cleaned up
>                *everything*, but we
>                need to get to a known state before tackling the rest,
>         so I'll
>                wait for
>                these two patches to be applied before looking back at
>         it...
>
>                Not to mention the Localized test thing.....
>
>                Erick
>
>
>                On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Michael McCandless
>                <[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>                <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>                <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote:
>
>                   On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Erick Erickson
>                   <[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>                <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>                <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote:
>                   > I generified the searches/function files in patch
>         2037. I
>                don't
>                   really think
>                   > there's a conflict, just commit my patch and have at
>                generifying
>                   the rest.
>
>                   OK so then we'll start with 2037, then take 2065's
>         patch,
>                hopefully
>                   updated to current trunk, but minus search/function
>         sources.
>
>                   > I know, I know. I did two things at once. So sue
>         me. Honest,
>                   I'll try not to
>                   > do this very often <G>...
>
>                   In fact I prefer this.  I used to think we shouldn't do
>                that but I
>                   flip-flopped and now think in practice you just have to
>                clean code
>                   while you're there, otherwise it won't get cleaned.
>
>                   > Mike:
>                   > You really want to to the generify the whole shootin'
>                match or
>                   do you want
>                   > to partition them? I'll be happy to take a set of
>         them.
>                Or would
>                   that make
>                   > things too complicated to apply?
>
>                   2065 already has done alot here (adding generics to the
>                tests)... I
>                   think we start from that and take it from there?
>
>                   Mike
>
>                        
>         ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>                   To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>                [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>                <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>                   <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>                <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>
>                   For additional commands, e-mail:
>                [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>                <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>                   <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>                <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>
>
>
>
>          
>          ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>            To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>         [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>            <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>            For additional commands, e-mail:
>         [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>            <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
>
>
>
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (LUCENE-2037) Allow Junit4 tests in our environment.

Michael McCandless-2
Thanks Kay Kay!  Erick can you have a look / iterate?  Thanks.

Mike

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Kay Kay <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Erick / Mike -
>  With 2065 commited onto trunk now - I created another patch for 2037 and
> attached in the ticket.
> 3 classes remain pending though due to conflicts , that I had listed with
> the patch. But we can probably revisit them subsequently.  Please review
> them to serve as a starting point for the same.
>
>
> Erick Erickson wrote:
>>
>> Mike:
>>
>> I should be able to create a new 2037 patch pretty easily if you
>> want to apply 2065 first. Let me know....
>>
>> Erick
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Kay Kay <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>    Mike -
>>    I have attached another patch to LUCENE-2065 , in sync with the
>>    trunk now.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    Erick Erickson wrote:
>>
>>        That's up to Mike, whichever way he finds easiest, I'll deal.
>>
>>        Erick
>>
>>        On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Kay Kay
>>        <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>>
>>           I created Lucene-2065 while working on 1257 , the original
>>           generics related ticket , and since we were running out of time
>>           for 3.0 ,  I guess we could not get src/test converted in.
>>
>>           In any case , if you were comitting this one (2037) to trunk ,
>>            may be I can wait before creating the patch again.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>           Erick Erickson wrote:
>>
>>               I didn't realize 2065 had already been down this path,
>>        thought
>>               you were volunteering to change all the code starting from
>>               scratch. Your approach sounds like a fine plan.
>>
>>               Note that I'm not entirely sure that I cleaned up
>>               *everything*, but we
>>               need to get to a known state before tackling the rest,
>>        so I'll
>>               wait for
>>               these two patches to be applied before looking back at
>>        it...
>>
>>               Not to mention the Localized test thing.....
>>
>>               Erick
>>
>>
>>               On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Michael McCandless
>>               <[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>               <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>>               <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote:
>>
>>                  On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Erick Erickson
>>                  <[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>        <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>               <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>>               <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote:
>>                  > I generified the searches/function files in patch
>>        2037. I
>>               don't
>>                  really think
>>                  > there's a conflict, just commit my patch and have at
>>               generifying
>>                  the rest.
>>
>>                  OK so then we'll start with 2037, then take 2065's
>>        patch,
>>               hopefully
>>                  updated to current trunk, but minus search/function
>>        sources.
>>
>>                  > I know, I know. I did two things at once. So sue
>>        me. Honest,
>>                  I'll try not to
>>                  > do this very often <G>...
>>
>>                  In fact I prefer this.  I used to think we shouldn't do
>>               that but I
>>                  flip-flopped and now think in practice you just have to
>>               clean code
>>                  while you're there, otherwise it won't get cleaned.
>>
>>                  > Mike:
>>                  > You really want to to the generify the whole shootin'
>>               match or
>>                  do you want
>>                  > to partition them? I'll be happy to take a set of
>>        them.
>>               Or would
>>                  that make
>>                  > things too complicated to apply?
>>
>>                  2065 already has done alot here (adding generics to the
>>               tests)... I
>>                  think we start from that and take it from there?
>>
>>                  Mike
>>
>>
>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>                  To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>               [hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>               <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>                  <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>               <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>>
>>                  For additional commands, e-mail:
>>               [hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>               <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>                  <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>               <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>           To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>        [hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>           <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>           For additional commands, e-mail:
>>        [hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>           <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>    <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>    For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>    <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (LUCENE-2037) Allow Junit4 tests in our environment.

Erick Erickson
Sure, but it won't be until late Saturday at the earliest, more likely Sunday. Got
a busy Fri/Sat....

Erick

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Michael McCandless <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks Kay Kay!  Erick can you have a look / iterate?  Thanks.

Mike

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Kay Kay <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Erick / Mike -
>  With 2065 commited onto trunk now - I created another patch for 2037 and
> attached in the ticket.
> 3 classes remain pending though due to conflicts , that I had listed with
> the patch. But we can probably revisit them subsequently.  Please review
> them to serve as a starting point for the same.
>
>
> Erick Erickson wrote:
>>
>> Mike:
>>
>> I should be able to create a new 2037 patch pretty easily if you
>> want to apply 2065 first. Let me know....
>>
>> Erick
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Kay Kay <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>    Mike -
>>    I have attached another patch to LUCENE-2065 , in sync with the
>>    trunk now.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    Erick Erickson wrote:
>>
>>        That's up to Mike, whichever way he finds easiest, I'll deal.
>>
>>        Erick
>>
>>        On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Kay Kay
>>        <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>>
>>           I created Lucene-2065 while working on 1257 , the original
>>           generics related ticket , and since we were running out of time
>>           for 3.0 ,  I guess we could not get src/test converted in.
>>
>>           In any case , if you were comitting this one (2037) to trunk ,
>>            may be I can wait before creating the patch again.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>           Erick Erickson wrote:
>>
>>               I didn't realize 2065 had already been down this path,
>>        thought
>>               you were volunteering to change all the code starting from
>>               scratch. Your approach sounds like a fine plan.
>>
>>               Note that I'm not entirely sure that I cleaned up
>>               *everything*, but we
>>               need to get to a known state before tackling the rest,
>>        so I'll
>>               wait for
>>               these two patches to be applied before looking back at
>>        it...
>>
>>               Not to mention the Localized test thing.....
>>
>>               Erick
>>
>>
>>               On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Michael McCandless
>>               <[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>               <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>>               <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote:
>>
>>                  On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Erick Erickson
>>                  <[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>        <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>               <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>>               <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>>> wrote:
>>                  > I generified the searches/function files in patch
>>        2037. I
>>               don't
>>                  really think
>>                  > there's a conflict, just commit my patch and have at
>>               generifying
>>                  the rest.
>>
>>                  OK so then we'll start with 2037, then take 2065's
>>        patch,
>>               hopefully
>>                  updated to current trunk, but minus search/function
>>        sources.
>>
>>                  > I know, I know. I did two things at once. So sue
>>        me. Honest,
>>                  I'll try not to
>>                  > do this very often <G>...
>>
>>                  In fact I prefer this.  I used to think we shouldn't do
>>               that but I
>>                  flip-flopped and now think in practice you just have to
>>               clean code
>>                  while you're there, otherwise it won't get cleaned.
>>
>>                  > Mike:
>>                  > You really want to to the generify the whole shootin'
>>               match or
>>                  do you want
>>                  > to partition them? I'll be happy to take a set of
>>        them.
>>               Or would
>>                  that make
>>                  > things too complicated to apply?
>>
>>                  2065 already has done alot here (adding generics to the
>>               tests)... I
>>                  think we start from that and take it from there?
>>
>>                  Mike
>>
>>
>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>                  To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>               [hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>               <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>                  <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>               <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>>
>>                  For additional commands, e-mail:
>>               [hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>               <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>                  <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>               <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>           To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>        [hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>           <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>           For additional commands, e-mail:
>>        [hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>           <mailto:[hidden email]
>>        <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>    <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>    For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>    <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]