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

Yes, I missed something :)
DIGY

-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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

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 performance are more important
than backwards compatibility.

DIGY

-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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

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 Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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 Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
>
>

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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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..

Thanks,
Troy
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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 Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
>
>

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 having features/code which are different from the
Java library. 2.9.4g sounds like a "bug fix version" for 2.9.4.

Thanks,
Troy
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:54 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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..
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 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 Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:05 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>

It is used already.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE/fixforversion/12315914

DIGY

-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 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 having features/code which are different from the
Java library. 2.9.4g sounds like a "bug fix version" for 2.9.4.

Thanks,
Troy
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:54 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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..
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 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 Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:05 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>

Indeed... 2.9.4g it is!

"G" for Generics should be easy to remember.
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is used already.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE/fixforversion/12315914
>
> DIGY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 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 having features/code which are different from the
> Java library. 2.9.4g sounds like a "bug fix version" for 2.9.4.
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:54 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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..
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Troy
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:05 PM
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

I must also say that I am not interested in the name of the version.
As you have said, It should be something that differentiates it from java versions.

DIGY

-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is used already.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE/fixforversion/12315914
>
> DIGY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 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 having features/code which are different from the
> Java library. 2.9.4g sounds like a "bug fix version" for 2.9.4.
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:54 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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..
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Troy
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:05 PM
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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

+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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 6:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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

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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 6:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
>

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 toolset.

- Neal

-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Powell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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-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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 6:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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

Yes, if you can't use a later framework, then you won't get the
benefits that come with that. One of the benefits that you may not get
is the latest version of the code with the least bugs. These are all
factors that a organization must take into account when considering
such policies. It's a tough choice to make, but even the most
conservative organizations need to move forward at some point. This is
the same issue that we all suffered through moving from 1.1 to 2.0...
Or moving from 32bit to 64bit... etc.

If there is a real technical limitation (as opposed to a 'business
decision/policy'), then the best option is to branch from a previous
2.0 compatible revision, and update the code to resolve whatever
issues you are encountering. Backporting from 3.5/4.0 code to 2.0 code
is not that difficult, especially when we have Mono available to work
from. Also, 2.9.4 (2.0 compatible) should have all the features of
2.9.4g (4.0 compatible)... That is accomplished by setting the target
framework to 2.0, and using Mono implementations of HashSet/SortedSet
in the SupportClass.cs. So, until we get to Lucene.Net 3.X (next
version after 2.9.4), there will be support for 2.0 framework for all
changes/features.
For those with a situation similar to Neal's, I would consider option
[0] in the vote. This option proposes maintaining 2.0 compatibility
with patches/ifdef blocks, but still considering 4.0 as the primary
target framework. This seems like it would be ideal for those stuck
with limitations about framework support. It is unfortunately, the
option that requires the most amount of coding work and the most code
complexity.

In general, I don't think we should consider targeting 3.5. One of the
problems with 3.5 compatibility is that depending on what version of
3.5 you have (service packs, etc) you may get different results (eg,
can't compile with certain builds). So if we say "3.5" is our target
-- which 3.5? 4.0 may end up the same, but at the moment, it doesn't
have this problem.
Perhaps we should work up a "For the boss" page which explains, in
detail, the cost/benefit analysis of choosing a version of Lucene.Net
(and it's associated framework dependencies). This will assist folks
who are trying to justify a particular perspective (either for/against
using a particular version). Benchmarks, known bugs/bug fixes/features
list, etc..
Thanks,
Troy
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Granroth, Neal V.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 toolset.
>
> - Neal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Powell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:41 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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-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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 6:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

+1.

I think we should run a v2 branch from main for a while rather than polluting the code base.  The v2 branch dies a natural death when parches are stopped being applied.

For the record I made v4 decision last night for my application.

Ken Foskey

On 10/05/2011, at 8:26 AM, Troy Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Yes, if you can't use a later framework, then you won't get the
> benefits that come with that. One of the benefits that you may not get
> is the latest version of the code with the least bugs. These are all
> factors that a organization must take into account when considering
> such policies. It's a tough choice to make, but even the most
> conservative organizations need to move forward at some point. This is
> the same issue that we all suffered through moving from 1.1 to 2.0...
> Or moving from 32bit to 64bit... etc.
>
> If there is a real technical limitation (as opposed to a 'business
> decision/policy'), then the best option is to branch from a previous
> 2.0 compatible revision, and update the code to resolve whatever
> issues you are encountering. Backporting from 3.5/4.0 code to 2.0 code
> is not that difficult, especially when we have Mono available to work
> from. Also, 2.9.4 (2.0 compatible) should have all the features of
> 2.9.4g (4.0 compatible)... That is accomplished by setting the target
> framework to 2.0, and using Mono implementations of HashSet/SortedSet
> in the SupportClass.cs. So, until we get to Lucene.Net 3.X (next
> version after 2.9.4), there will be support for 2.0 framework for all
> changes/features.
>
>
> For those with a situation similar to Neal's, I would consider option
> [0] in the vote. This option proposes maintaining 2.0 compatibility
> with patches/ifdef blocks, but still considering 4.0 as the primary
> target framework. This seems like it would be ideal for those stuck
> with limitations about framework support. It is unfortunately, the
> option that requires the most amount of coding work and the most code
> complexity.
>
> In general, I don't think we should consider targeting 3.5. One of the
> problems with 3.5 compatibility is that depending on what version of
> 3.5 you have (service packs, etc) you may get different results (eg,
> can't compile with certain builds). So if we say "3.5" is our target
> -- which 3.5? 4.0 may end up the same, but at the moment, it doesn't
> have this problem.
>
>
> Perhaps we should work up a "For the boss" page which explains, in
> detail, the cost/benefit analysis of choosing a version of Lucene.Net
> (and it's associated framework dependencies). This will assist folks
> who are trying to justify a particular perspective (either for/against
> using a particular version). Benchmarks, known bugs/bug fixes/features
> list, etc..
>
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Granroth, Neal V.
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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 toolset.
>>
>> - Neal
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Aaron Powell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:41 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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-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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

>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...

Moray
-------------------------------------
Moray McConnachie
Director of IT    +44 1865 261 600
Oxford Analytica  http://www.oxan.com

---------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer

This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.

Oxford Analytica Ltd
Registered in England: No. 1196703
5 Alfred Street, Oxford
United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
---------------------------------------------------------

+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 <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> >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...
>
> Moray
> -------------------------------------
> Moray McConnachie
> Director of IT    +44 1865 261 600
> Oxford Analytica  http://www.oxan.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer
>
> This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. If
> this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or disclose
> them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
>
> Oxford Analytica Ltd
> Registered in England: No. 1196703
> 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>

+1, burn the ships.

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Christopher Currens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> >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...
>>
>> Moray
>> -------------------------------------
>> Moray McConnachie
>> Director of IT    +44 1865 261 600
>> Oxford Analytica  http://www.oxan.com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Disclaimer
>>
>> This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. If
>> this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or disclose
>> them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
>>
>> Oxford Analytica Ltd
>> Registered in England: No. 1196703
>> 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
>> United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>

+1

Many Thanks
Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 09 May 2011 21:05
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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

+1, go for .NET 4...
Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 09 May 2011 21:05
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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

+1 (According to Digy's suggestion)
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Troy Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
>

+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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> +1 (According to Digy's suggestion)
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Troy Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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"

This is my +1 as well

----------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 09:24:07 +0200
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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, 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 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"    

+1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or
constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or
distribution of this message, or files associated with this message,
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting
it from your computer.  Thank you, King Industries, Inc.

Do it, if you need it. +1

Le 10/05/11 20:02, Lombard, Scott a �crit :
> +1
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:05 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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
>
> This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the
> use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may
> contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or
> constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient
> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or
> distribution of this message, or files associated with this message,
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting
> it from your computer.  Thank you, King Industries, Inc.
>

[+1]

Regards
Anders Lybecker
http://www.lybecker.com/blog/

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Troy Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
>

[+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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
o:  (310) 255-1172
m: (818) 231-8191
f:  (310) 255-1176
a:  409 Santa Monica Blvd, suite 2A
     Santa Monica, CA 90401

blog: alonshwartz.com
twitter: twitter.com/alonsh
On 5/9/11 1:04 PM, "Troy Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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

+1

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Alon Shwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> o:  (310) 255-1172
> m: (818) 231-8191
> f:  (310) 255-1176
> a:  409 Santa Monica Blvd, suite 2A
>     Santa Monica, CA 90401
>
> blog: alonshwartz.com
> twitter: twitter.com/alonsh
>
>
>
>
> On 5/9/11 1:04 PM, "Troy Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
>
>
--
Michael C. Neel (@ViNull)
http://www.ViNull.com

By the way, the "g" in 2.9.4g stands for "Generics"
DIGY

-----Original Message-----
From: Digy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:03 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4

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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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..

Thanks,
Troy
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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 Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
>
>

+1

>>> Troy Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 6:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
>

+1

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Gregory Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> +1
>
> >>> Troy Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Troy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 6:05 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 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
> >
>
>
--
--Regards, Sergey Mirvoda