+1
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Alon Shwartz wrote:
> [+1]. It's way over due and time to move on to new technologies. I would
> move to .Net 4.0 as by the time the Lucene.Net would be ready and
> (somewhat) stable so will .Net 4.0
>
>
> Alon Shwartz
> CTO & co-founder
> docstoc.com
> al...
[+1]. It's way over due and time to move on to new technologies. I would
move to .Net 4.0 as by the time the Lucene.Net would be ready and
(somewhat) stable so will .Net 4.0
Alon Shwartz
CTO & co-founder
docstoc.com
al...@docstoc.com
o: (310) 255-1172
m: (818) 231-8191
f: (310) 255-1176
a: 4
[+1]
Regards
Anders Lybecker
http://www.lybecker.com/blog/
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Troy Howard 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
eally 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,
+1
> -Original Message-
> From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:05 PM
> To: lucene-net-...@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,
>
> Ple
> To: lucene-net-...@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
-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache
Lucene.Net 2.9.4
Indeed... 2.9.4g it is!
"G" for Generics should be easy to remember.
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Digy wrote:
> It is used already.
>
> https://issues.apache.org
We could specify a new version starting with 2.9.4g and call it 2.9.5
... Let 2.9.4 be 2.0 compatible, and let 2.9.5 not be.
2.9.5 would include the changes to generic collections, etc..
Thanks,
Troy
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Digy wrote:
> Before 2.9.4g, I would surely say "drop support
