I second for a stable release. I've also been waiting for one to integrate into our product for several months now.
Thank you. tjk :) On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:07 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good remark. > > Recently I had the same situation. The lack of up-to-date stable release was > the reason not to use > > Lucene.NET for a new project. > > Andrei > > > Johnson, Scott ?????: >> >> 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 >> >> >> > >
