+1 here as well. I cannot use a version in our enterprise project development unless it's an official release. I assume there are much more fixes and enhancements from 2.1 to 2.3.2 then from 2.3.2 to 2.4.0. Thanks, Eran. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:04 PM, TJ Kolev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
