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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
