Please do commit 2.3.2 as a release that "one can just download".
I have seen multiple cases where the lack of a more up-to-date stable release of Lucene.NET has slowed corporate adoption and introduced needless version incompatibilities. This release would help push our development partners and toolkit vendors towards using the latest technology. Thanks, Scott -----Original Message----- From: Digy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 6:54 PM To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: 2.4.0 Hi Doug, The bug(LUCENENET-106) carried over from v2.1 to v2.3.1 and v2.3.2, a newly discovered one(LUCENENET-164) and an improvement(LUCENENET-160 - since there are a lot of exceptions while checking whether a string is a real-number or not) are waiting to be fixed. And there is also no stable release for Lucene.Net community after v2.0.0.4 where one can just download and use Lucene.Net without searching the JIRA issues and applying some patches(like I do). Therefore, I would prefer,first, to commit a version ready-to-release(2.3.2) and then, while dealing with the apache-release-process, continue with the development of the v2.4 In the mean time, try to keep yourself alive J DIGY. -----Original Message----- From: Doug Sale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:19 PM To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: 2.4.0 Folks, I've been converting the 2.3.2 code to 2.4.0 and anticipate having a clean build by Monday AM. There will be bugs, I'm sure. Also, there are some new classes that I've only stubbed out, and some issues I've identified that would be best hashed out (by the community) prior to addressing. I am curious how we should proceed to work on the 2.4.0 conversion. Should we tag 2.3.2 and have the 2.4.0 code be HEAD? Is there a better-suited approach? I would like to get this code into SVN *somewhere* (in case I get hit by a bus, laptop in hand). Honestly, I want to preserve our momentum and be prepared to work on the Lucene.Net 3.0 version as it becomes available (or sooner...). Please respond with any thoughts/ideas? Thanks, Doug
