That only works if you are *allowed* to deploy a new or updated .NET framework 
on the target system, which is not always true.

But the problem is not really about deployment it is really more for those of 
us who must compile from source and who are not permitted to upgrade our 
development toolset.

- Neal

-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Powell [mailto:m...@aaron-powell.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:41 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache 
Lucene.Net 2.9.4

+1

PS: If you are supporting .NET 3.5 then you get .NET 2.0 support anyway, you 
just have to bin-deploy the .NET 3.5 dependencies (System.Core, etc) since they 
are all the same CLR

Aaron Powell
MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | Umbraco Core Team Member | FunnelWeb 
Team Member

http://apowell.me http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | 
MSN: aaz...@hotmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 6:05 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@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

Reply via email to