Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
+1 On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Gregory Bell wrote: > +1 > > >>> Troy Howard 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 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
+1 >>> Troy Howard 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 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 >
Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
Do it, if you need it. +1 Le 10/05/11 20:02, Lombard, Scott a écrit : +1 -Original Message- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:05 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 This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc.
[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 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 >> - >> >> >
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 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 >> - >> >> >
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
>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, 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
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 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 (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 >
RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
+1 Many Thanks Richard -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
That only works if you are *allowed* to deploy a new or updated .NET framework on the target system, which is not always true. But the problem is not really about deployment it is really more for those of us who must compile from source and who are not permitted to upgrade our development toolset. - Neal -Original Message- From: Aaron Powell [mailto:m...@aaron-powell.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:41 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4 +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
Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
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 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 >
RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
+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
Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
Indeed... 2.9.4g it is! "G" for Generics should be easy to remember. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Digy wrote: > It is used already. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE/fixforversion/12315914 > > DIGY > > -Original Message- > From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:21 AM > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache > Lucene.Net 2.9.4 > > That makes sense, however my suggestion of using 2.9.5 is for the same > purpose. Since the code base is now diverging from the Java library, > it makes sense that the version numbers would diverge as well. The > fact that there is no Java version 2.9.5 will make that Lucene.Net > version stand out as having features/code which are different from the > Java library. 2.9.4g sounds like a "bug fix version" for 2.9.4. > > Thanks, > Troy > > > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Digy wrote: >> 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 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 >>> >>> >> >> > >
RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
It is used already. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE/fixforversion/12315914 DIGY -Original Message- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:21 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4 That makes sense, however my suggestion of using 2.9.5 is for the same purpose. Since the code base is now diverging from the Java library, it makes sense that the version numbers would diverge as well. The fact that there is no Java version 2.9.5 will make that Lucene.Net version stand out as having features/code which are different from the Java library. 2.9.4g sounds like a "bug fix version" for 2.9.4. Thanks, Troy On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Digy wrote: > 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 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 >> >> > >
Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
That makes sense, however my suggestion of using 2.9.5 is for the same purpose. Since the code base is now diverging from the Java library, it makes sense that the version numbers would diverge as well. The fact that there is no Java version 2.9.5 will make that Lucene.Net version stand out as having features/code which are different from the Java library. 2.9.4g sounds like a "bug fix version" for 2.9.4. Thanks, Troy On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Digy wrote: > 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 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 >> >> > >
RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
By the way, the "g" in 2.9.4g stands for "Generics" DIGY -Original Message- From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:03 AM To: 'lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org' Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4 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 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 > >
RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
+1 -Original Message- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:05 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
RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
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 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 > >
RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
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
RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
What about For 2.9.4: [-1] No, .Net Framework 2.0 should remain our target platform. Backwards compatibility is more important than new features and performance. AND For 2.9.4g: [+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. 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
RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
Yes, I missed something :) 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
