+1
Many Thanks
Richard
-Original Message-
From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com]
Sent: 09 May 2011 21:05
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 cas
Here's the wiki page:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/Go6OAQ
Thanks,
Troy
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Troy Howard wrote:
> Michael,
>
> That worked!
>
> I'm in the process of making a wiki page for the event now.
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Michael Herndo
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 tools
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 .Ne
+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://apo
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/jira/browse/LUCENE/fixforversion/12315914
>
> DIGY
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com]
It is used already.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE/fixforversion/12315914
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:21 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Sup
That makes sense, however my suggestion of using 2.9.5 is for the same
purpose. Since the code base is now diverging from the Java library,
it makes sense that the version numbers would diverge as well. The
fact that there is no Java version 2.9.5 will make that Lucene.Net
version stand out as havi
By the way, the "g" in 2.9.4g stands for "Generics"
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:03 AM
To: 'lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org'
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache
Lucene.Net 2.9.4
I chose
+1
-Original Message-
From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:05 PM
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 vot
I chose the name "2.9.4g", since 2.9.5 may give a feeling of lucene.java 2.9.5
exists.
2.9.4g is somewhere between 2.9.4 & 3.0.3(more close to 3.0.3)
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:54 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apac
Michael,
That worked!
I'm in the process of making a wiki page for the event now.
Thanks,
Troy
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Michael Herndon
wrote:
>
> log out and log back in and verify permission changes.
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Troy Howard wrote:
>
> > Re: "I'm not sure if t
Before 2.9.4g, I would surely say "drop support for 2.0 completely". But now we
have two versions(2.9.4 & 2.9.4g) and one can continue to support 2.0 till its
death (2.9.4g may be used as base for future versions, but this is not true for
2.9.4)
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: Troy Howar
log out and log back in and verify permission changes.
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Troy Howard wrote:
> Re: "I'm not sure if there is a coding difference between the C# stuff and
> the other directory stuff."
>
> There are a few minor code changes in the new branch vs the C# branch, but
> th
The government tends to work in this fashion of wanting security and
critical bug updates, but are generally unwilling to upgrade underlying
platform to a newer major version.
An example: security vulnerability patched in later versions of
lucene.netthat are compile on .NET 3.5+ but the bug was ex
What about
For 2.9.4:
[-1] No, .Net Framework 2.0 should remain our target platform. Backwards
compatibility is more important than new features and performance.
AND
For 2.9.4g:
[+1] - Yes, move forward to the latest .Net Framework version, and drop
support for 2.0 completely. New features and p
* but the bug existed in older *
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Michael Herndon wrote:
> The government tends to work in this fashion of wanting security and
> critical bug updates, but are generally unwilling to upgrade underlying
> platform to a newer major version.
>
> An example: security v
Yes, sorry -- I didn't mean to conflate the two issues.
'var' is just syntactic sugar. I'm more concerned with the framework support
issue, which is not directly related to the use of var, but is tied in with
the discussion.
Thanks,
Troy
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Digy wrote:
> > I'll st
Re: "I'm not sure if there is a coding difference between the C# stuff and
the other directory stuff."
There are a few minor code changes in the new branch vs the C# branch, but
those are things like framework target, copyright notices, etc.. I didn't
change code significantly, and unit tests stil
Yes, I missed something :)
DIGY
-Original Message-
From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:05 PM
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.
> I'll start a more official vote thread to finalize our stance. I think the
> general consensus is "yes to var", but that might just be my bias talking.
Maybe, I am missing something but "var" is just a syntactic sugar and changes
nothing in IL level. So, I don't see a case to vote.
If you think
Let me know once this is a concrete answer. It needs to go on the wiki and
tweeted and even blogged about.
There will most likely be some push back, especially if anyone is using
Lucene.Net inside of government projects. They always take forever in
letting you develop with the latest stable techn
I sent an email out and never heard back from them. We are back to forking
outside of the Lucene.Net repos if need to.
Scott
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Thompson [mailto:pierogi...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 10:08 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subj
I think Troy has the structure ready to roll - I'm not sure if there is a
coding difference between the C# stuff and the other directory stuff. If there
isn't then we can probably branch C# to something like pre_NewStructure
(someone help me with a better name), then remove it from the trunk.
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>
> +1 to getting 2.9.4 ready to roll + the changes to the directory structure we
> have
> going
+1 for 2.9.4 and directory structure.
To make that happen, I'd like to know what needs to be done and in
what way I could be of any help. There
25 matches
Mail list logo
