lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eran Sevi" <erans...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 2.4.0
Date Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:44:33 GMT
+1 here as well.
I cannot use a version in our enterprise project development unless it's an
official release.
I assume there are much more fixes and enhancements from 2.1 to 2.3.2 then
from 2.3.2 to 2.4.0.
Thanks,
Eran.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:04 PM, TJ Kolev <tjkolev@gmail.com> wrote:

> I second for a stable release. I've also been waiting for one to
> integrate into our product for several months now.
>
> Thank you.
> tjk :)
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:07 AM, xzxz@mail.ru <xzxz@mail.ru> wrote:
> > Good remark.
> >
> > Recently I had the same situation. The lack of up-to-date stable release
> was
> > the reason not to use
> >
> > Lucene.NET for a new project.
> >
> > Andrei
> >
> >
> > Johnson, Scott ?????:
> >>
> >> Please do commit 2.3.2 as a release that "one can just download".
> >>
> >> I have seen multiple cases where the lack of a more up-to-date stable
> >> release of Lucene.NET has slowed corporate adoption and introduced
> >> needless version incompatibilities.  This release would help push our
> >> development partners and toolkit vendors towards using the latest
> >> technology.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008
> >> 6:54 PM
> >> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: 2.4.0
> >>
> >> Hi Doug,
> >>
> >>
> >> The bug(LUCENENET-106) carried over from v2.1 to v2.3.1 and v2.3.2,   a
> >> newly discovered one(LUCENENET-164)    and an improvement(LUCENENET-160
> >> -
> >> since there are a lot of exceptions while checking whether a string is a
> >> real-number or not) are waiting to be fixed.
> >> And there is also no stable release for Lucene.Net community after
> >> v2.0.0.4 where one can just download and use Lucene.Net without
> >> searching the JIRA issues and applying some patches(like I do).
> >>
> >>
> >> Therefore, I would prefer,first, to commit a version
> >> ready-to-release(2.3.2) and then, while dealing with the
> >> apache-release-process, continue with the development of the v2.4
> >>
> >>
> >> In the mean time, try to keep yourself alive J
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> DIGY.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> From: Doug Sale [mailto:dougsale@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:19 PM
> >>
> >> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >> Subject: 2.4.0
> >>
> >>
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >>
> >> I've been converting the 2.3.2 code to 2.4.0 and anticipate having a
> >> clean
> >>
> >> build by Monday AM.  There will be bugs, I'm sure.  Also, there are some
> >> new
> >>
> >> classes that I've only stubbed out, and some issues I've identified that
> >>
> >> would be best hashed out (by the community) prior to addressing.
> >>
> >>
> >> I am curious how we should proceed to work on the 2.4.0 conversion.
> >> Should
> >>
> >> we tag 2.3.2 and have the 2.4.0 code be HEAD?  Is there a better-suited
> >>
> >> approach?
> >>
> >>
> >> I would like to get this code into SVN *somewhere* (in case I get hit by
> >> a
> >>
> >> bus, laptop in hand).  Honestly, I want to preserve our momentum and be
> >>
> >> prepared to work on the Lucene.Net 3.0 version as it becomes available
> >> (or
> >>
> >> sooner...).
> >>
> >>
> >> Please respond with any thoughts/ideas?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Doug
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message