I agree with Digy's suggestion. While keeping up with the Java releases is important, having a stable, downloadable binary release is definitely important for acceptance. Sean
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Johnson, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > >
