I chose the name "2.9.4g", since 2.9.5 may give a feeling of lucene.java 2.9.5 exists. 2.9.4g is somewhere between 2.9.4 & 3.0.3(more close to 3.0.3)
DIGY -----Original Message----- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:54 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4 We could specify a new version starting with 2.9.4g and call it 2.9.5 ... Let 2.9.4 be 2.0 compatible, and let 2.9.5 not be. 2.9.5 would include the changes to generic collections, etc.. Thanks, Troy On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Digy <digyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > Before 2.9.4g, I would surely say "drop support for 2.0 completely". But > now we have two versions(2.9.4 & 2.9.4g) and one can continue to support 2.0 > till its death (2.9.4g may be used as base for future versions, but this is > not true for 2.9.4) > > DIGY > > -----Original Message----- > From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:05 PM > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org > Subject: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache > Lucene.Net 2.9.4 > > 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 > >
