+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"
