+1
one option is that we could go forward with .NET 4, but still keep a "fix
branch" that keeps the current .NET 2 based version free from bugs and
security issues that ppl report.

Simone

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Amanuel Workneh <ma...@rotselleri.com>wrote:

> +1 (According to Digy's suggestion)
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>



-- 
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"

Reply via email to