lucene-lucene-net-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
Date Mon, 09 May 2011 21:31:54 GMT
Indeed... 2.9.4g it is!

"G" for Generics should be easy to remember.


On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is used already.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE/fixforversion/12315914
>
> DIGY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@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 <digydigy@gmail.com> 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:thoward37@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 <digydigy@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:thoward37@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:05 PM
>>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message