+1
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Gregory Bell wrote:
> +1
>
> >>> Troy Howard 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
+1
>>> Troy Howard 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 with
Do it, if you need it. +1
Le 10/05/11 20:02, Lombard, Scott a écrit :
+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 F
I've cast my vote already, but +1 to Wyatt's expression
-Original Message-
From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:wyatt.barn...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:46 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache
+1, burn the ships.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Christopher Currens
wrote:
> +1, but I'm partial to 0 if the demand is there for it. I don't mind
> keeping up support for 2.0, in a separate branch, for a set amount of time.
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Moray McConnachie <
> mmcco..
+1, but I'm partial to 0 if the demand is there for it. I don't mind
keeping up support for 2.0, in a separate branch, for a set amount of time.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Moray McConnachie <
mmcco...@oxford-analytica.com> wrote:
>
> >PS: If you are supporting .NET 3.5 then you get .NET 2.
>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
Aaron, I think the move to 4.0 is actually to stop supporting 3.5 as
well judging by later emails...
+1, go for .NET 4...
Thanks
-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
This is my +1 as well
> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 09:24:07 +0200
> From: simone.chiare...@gmail.com
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache
> Lucene.Net 2.9.4
>
+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 wrote:
> +1 (According to Digy's suggestion)
>
>
> On Mon,
+1 (According to Digy's suggestion)
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 the
> .Net 2.0 Framewor
+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
toolset.
- Neal
-Original Message-
From: Aaron Powell [mailto:m...@aaron-powell.com]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:41 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@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
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
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 Support After Apache
> Lucene.Net 2.9.4
>
> That makes sense, however my suggestion of using 2.9.5 is for the
ne.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.apache.org
> Subject
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.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0
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 Aft
+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
lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache
Lucene.Net 2.9.4
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..
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
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
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.
24 matches
Mail list logo
