* but the bug existed in older * On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Michael Herndon <mhern...@wickedsoftware.net > wrote:
> The government tends to work in this fashion of wanting security and > critical bug updates, but are generally unwilling to upgrade underlying > platform to a newer major version. > > An example: security vulnerability patched in later versions of > lucene.netthat are compile on .NET 3.5+ but the bug was exist in order > versions. > > They would want the patch back-ported in a version that supported .Net 2.0 > because of the perceived cost in upgrading the rest of the software to a > newer version of .net. > > I'm all for pushing people forward (I tend to use var and mixins myself). > > But it might be wise to think on a strategy that allows room for back > porting any critical updates and supporting those till date/year x (though > no longer than 2 years at most) to give people breathing room and avoiding > panic. > > - Michael > > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'll start a more official vote thread to finalize our stance. I think the >> general consensus is "yes to var", but that might just be my bias talking. >> >> Re: Government projects and new tech.. There is nothing stopping >> conservative organizations from using our previous releases. Building from >> source or using the bleeding edge is not a smart tactic for anyone who >> cares >> about stability, government or otherwise. >> >> -T >> >> >> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Michael Herndon < >> mhern...@wickedsoftware.net> wrote: >> >> > Let me know once this is a concrete answer. It needs to go on the wiki >> and >> > tweeted and even blogged about. >> > >> > There will most likely be some push back, especially if anyone is using >> > Lucene.Net inside of government projects. They always take forever in >> > letting you develop with the latest stable technologies. >> > >> > - Michael >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Digy <digyd...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > The new C# features are committed only to 2.9.4g branch. 2.9.4 can >> still >> > be >> > > built targeting .NET 2.0. >> > > We can continue to support both version in parallel (in terms of bug >> > fixes >> > > such as LUCENENET-172 & LUCENENET-413, maybe LUCENENET-266) and >> declare >> > that >> > > 2.9.4 will be the last version supporting 2.0 framework. >> > > >> > > DIGY >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] >> > > Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 12:06 PM >> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org >> > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] var >> > > >> > > Using var is wonderful and great. We'll hopefully do doing a lot of >> > > refactoring in the near future. var makes refactoring easier. >> > > >> > > I think we've committed fairly strongly to moving past 2.0 support. >> AFAIK >> > > the current trunk won't build under 2.0 anyhow (or am I mistaken, DIGY >> > used >> > > HashSet<T> in a recent patch, which is 3.5 or higher, and all the >> > solutions >> > > I committed in the recent directory updates were VS2010, and all the >> > csproj >> > > files updated to target 4.0). So, I don't see any reason to maintain >> 2.0 >> > > compatibility... The 4.0 runtime offers so many benefits over previous >> > > versions that, IMO, everyone who writes .NET apps should be working >> hard >> > to >> > > migrate forward to 4.0 if they aren't already there. >> > > >> > > We can help the community along by giving them one more good reason to >> > > switch to a better runtime. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Troy >> > > >> > > >> > > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Aaron Powell <m...@aaron-powell.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Yes it's a C# 3 feature, but the C# 3 compiler (shipped in VS 2008) >> can >> > > > compile C# 2.0 and C# 3.0 assemblies. >> > > > Quick test: http://www.aaron-powell.com/get/var-csharp-2.PNG >> > > > >> > > > I don't have VS 2008 though, this test was done with VS 2010 using >> the >> > > > multitargetting features >> > > > >> > > > Aaron Powell >> > > > MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | Umbraco Core Team >> > > > Member | FunnelWeb Team Member >> > > > >> > > > http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: >> aaron.l.powell | >> > > > MSN: aaz...@hotmail.com >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com] >> > > > Sent: Saturday, 7 May 2011 5:32 PM >> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org >> > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] var >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > ~Prescott Nasser >> > > > prescott.nas...@hotmail.com >> > > > 650.208.4205 >> > > > >> > > > It's a 3.0 keyword, can't be used pre C# 3.0 >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > From: m...@aaron-powell.com >> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org >> > > > > Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 07:28:36 +0000 >> > > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] var >> > > > > >> > > > > My understanding of the 'var' keyword is just C# syntactic sugar, >> > which >> > > > the compiler will translate into the actual CLR type for variable >> > > > assignment, so the compiler is capable of compiling CLR 2.0 >> assemblies >> > > > anyway. >> > > > > >> > > > > Aaron Powell >> > > > > MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | Umbraco Core Team Member | >> > > > FunnelWeb Team Member >> > > > > >> > > > > http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: >> aaron.l.powell >> > | >> > > > MSN: aaz...@hotmail.com >> > > > > >> > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mhern...@wickedsoftware.net] >> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 7 May 2011 3:56 PM >> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org >> > > > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] var >> > > > > >> > > > > I think that is going to depend on if we are continuing .net 2.0 / >> C# >> > > 2.0 >> > > > support or dropping it. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Prescott Nasser < >> > geobmx...@hotmail.com >> > > > >wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Where do we stand on use of the var keyword? >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >
