+1 On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Gregory Bell <gregory.b...@advansyscorp.com > wrote:
> +1 > > >>> Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com> 10/05/2011 7:44 AM >>> > My goal with moving forward to .Net 4.0 specifically, is that with 4.0 > there are major improvements to the .NET GC, which we have already > found in our company's testing, improves Lucene.Net's memory > management and overall speed significantly. This is without any code > changes, just compiling for .Net 4.0 framework target vs 2.0 or 3.5... > > Thanks, > Troy > > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Aaron Powell <m...@aaron-powell.com> wrote: > > +1 > > > > PS: If you are supporting .NET 3.5 then you get .NET 2.0 support anyway, > you just have to bin-deploy the .NET 3.5 dependencies (System.Core, etc) > since they are all the same CLR > > > > 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: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 6:05 AM > > 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 > > > > -- --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda
