+1 >>> Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com> 10/05/2011 7:44 AM >>> My goal with moving forward to .Net 4.0 specifically, is that with 4.0 there are major improvements to the .NET GC, which we have already found in our company's testing, improves Lucene.Net's memory management and overall speed significantly. This is without any code changes, just compiling for .Net 4.0 framework target vs 2.0 or 3.5...
Thanks, Troy On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Aaron Powell <m...@aaron-powell.com> wrote: > +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 >
