+1 On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Alon Shwartz <[email protected]> wrote:
> [+1]. It's way over due and time to move on to new technologies. I would > move to .Net 4.0 as by the time the Lucene.Net would be ready and > (somewhat) stable so will .Net 4.0 > > > Alon Shwartz > CTO & co-founder > docstoc.com > [email protected] > o: (310) 255-1172 > m: (818) 231-8191 > f: (310) 255-1176 > a: 409 Santa Monica Blvd, suite 2A > Santa Monica, CA 90401 > > blog: alonshwartz.com > twitter: twitter.com/alonsh > > > > > On 5/9/11 1:04 PM, "Troy Howard" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >All, > > > >Please cast your votes regarding the topic of .Net Framework support. > > > >The question on the table is: > > > >Should Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4 be the last release which supports the > >.Net 2.0 Framework? > > > >Some options are: > > > >[+1] - Yes, move forward to the latest .Net Framework version, and drop > >support for 2.0 completely. New features and performance are more > >important > >than backwards compatibility. > >[0] - Yes, focus on the latest .Net Framework, but also include patches > >and/or preprocessor directives and conditional compilation blocks to > >include > >support for 2.0 when needed. New features, performance, and backwards > >compatibility are all equally important and it's worth the additional > >complexity and coding work to meet all of those goals. > >[-1] No, .Net Framework 2.0 should remain our target platform. Backwards > >compatibility is more important than new features and performance. > > > > > >This vote is not limited to the Apache Lucene.Net IPMC. All > >users/contributors/committers/mailing list lurkers are welcome to cast > >their > >votes with an equal weight. This has been cross posted to both the dev and > >user mailing lists. > > > >Thanks, > >Troy > > -- Michael C. Neel (@ViNull) http://www.ViNull.com
