Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
+1 (According to Digy's suggestion) On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Troy Howard thowar...@gmail.com 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
+1 one option is that we could go forward with .NET 4, but still keep a fix branch that keeps the current .NET 2 based version free from bugs and security issues that ppl report. Simone On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Amanuel Workneh ma...@rotselleri.comwrote: +1 (According to Digy's suggestion) On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Troy Howard thowar...@gmail.com 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 -- Simone Chiaretta Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber twitter: @simonech Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic Life is short, play hard
RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
This is my +1 as well Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 09:24:07 +0200 From: simone.chiare...@gmail.com To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4 +1 one option is that we could go forward with .NET 4, but still keep a fix branch that keeps the current .NET 2 based version free from bugs and security issues that ppl report. Simone On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Amanuel Workneh wrote: +1 (According to Digy's suggestion) On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Troy Howard 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 -- Simone Chiaretta Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber twitter: @simonech Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic Life is short, play hard
RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
+1, go for .NET 4... Thanks -Original Message- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: 09 May 2011 21:05 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
+1, but I'm partial to 0 if the demand is there for it. I don't mind keeping up support for 2.0, in a separate branch, for a set amount of time. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Moray McConnachie mmcco...@oxford-analytica.com wrote: 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 Aaron, I think the move to 4.0 is actually to stop supporting 3.5 as well judging by later emails... Moray - Moray McConnachie Director of IT+44 1865 261 600 Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com - Disclaimer This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible. Oxford Analytica Ltd Registered in England: No. 1196703 5 Alfred Street, Oxford United Kingdom, OX1 4EH -
Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
+1, burn the ships. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Christopher Currens currens.ch...@gmail.com wrote: +1, but I'm partial to 0 if the demand is there for it. I don't mind keeping up support for 2.0, in a separate branch, for a set amount of time. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Moray McConnachie mmcco...@oxford-analytica.com wrote: 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 Aaron, I think the move to 4.0 is actually to stop supporting 3.5 as well judging by later emails... Moray - Moray McConnachie Director of IT +44 1865 261 600 Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com - Disclaimer This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible. Oxford Analytica Ltd Registered in England: No. 1196703 5 Alfred Street, Oxford United Kingdom, OX1 4EH -
[Lucene.Net] OT: Wyatt's expression was - RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
I've cast my vote already, but +1 to Wyatt's expression -Original Message- From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:wyatt.barn...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:46 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 +1, burn the ships. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Christopher Currens currens.ch...@gmail.com wrote: +1, but I'm partial to 0 if the demand is there for it. I don't mind keeping up support for 2.0, in a separate branch, for a set amount of time. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Moray McConnachie mmcco...@oxford-analytica.com wrote: 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 Aaron, I think the move to 4.0 is actually to stop supporting 3.5 as well judging by later emails... Moray - Moray McConnachie Director of IT +44 1865 261 600 Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com - Disclaimer This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible. Oxford Analytica Ltd Registered in England: No. 1196703 5 Alfred Street, Oxford United Kingdom, OX1 4EH -
